Crocilla v. Crocilla

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crocilla v. Crocilla

285 A.D. 970, 138 N.Y.S.2d 721

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 21, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D. 970 (Crocilla v. Crocilla) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Crocilla v. Crocilla, 285 A.D. 970, 138 N.Y.S.2d 721 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for an annulment and for other relief, the defendant appeals from an order awarding alimony and counsel fees. Order reversed, without costs, and motion denied, without costs. Aside from the alleged declaration or confession of the defendant, and her own statement, plaintiff has set forth nothing that will be other evidence of the facts necessary to be established to obtain an annulment of the marriage. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1143; cf. Be Baillet-Latour v. Be Baillet-Latour, 301 N. Y. 428.) Moreover, she does not allege that she has no income. Neither is there any contradiction by her of the statements by the defendant as to what was determined as to his and her income in the Domestic Relations Court, and their contribution to the business for which in her complaint she alleges she furnished $10,000. Wenzel, Acting P. J., MacCrate, Schmidt, Beldock and Ughetta, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action for an annulment and for other relief, the defendant appeals from an order awarding alimony and counsel fees. Order reversed, without costs, and motion denied, without costs. Aside from the alleged declaration or confession of the defendant, and her own statement, plaintiff has set forth nothing that will be other evidence of the facts necessary to be established to obtain an annulment of the marriage. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1143; cf. Be Baillet-Latour v. Be Baillet-Latour, 301 N. Y. 428.) Moreover, she does not allege that she has no income. Neither is there any contradiction by her of the statements by the defendant as to what was determined as to his and her income in the Domestic Relations Court, and their contribution to the business for which in her complaint she alleges she furnished $10,000. Wenzel, Acting P. J., MacCrate, Schmidt, Beldock and Ughetta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D. 970, 138 N.Y.S.2d 721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crocilla-v-crocilla-nyappdiv-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack