D'Amico v. D'Amico

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

D'Amico v. D'Amico

26 Misc. 2d 76, 201 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2912

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 31, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 26 Misc. 2d 76 (D'Amico v. D'Amico) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

D'Amico v. D'Amico, 26 Misc. 2d 76, 201 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2912 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Accrued alimony and support payments under a valid Alabama divorce decree are recoverable by action in this State. (Scott v. Scott, 265 Ala. 208; Epps v. Epps, 218 Ala. 667; Rochelle v. Rochelle, 235 Ala. 526; Sistare v. Sistare, 218 U. S. 1; Smith v. Smith, 255 App. Div. 652; Hafstad v. Hafstad, 20 Misc 2d 979.) Reinstatement of the judgment does not preclude defendant from appealing therefrom on the merits. Eighteen days will be available for that purpose after due service of a copy of the order of reinstatement together with notice of entry. (8 Carmody-Waite, New York Practice, p. 589, § 123; Fox v. Lindenman, 145 N. Y. S. 896.)

The order should be unanimously reversed upon the law, with $10 costs to the plaintiff and judgment in favor of plaintiff reinstated.

Concur — Habt, Di G-iovanna and Benjamin, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

Accrued alimony and support payments under a valid Alabama divorce decree are recoverable by action in this State. (Scott v. Scott, 265 Ala. 208; Epps v. Epps, 218 Ala. 667; Rochelle v. Rochelle, 235 Ala. 526; Sistare v. Sistare, 218 U. S. 1; Smith v. Smith, 255 App. Div. 652; Hafstad v. Hafstad, 20 Misc 2d 979.) Reinstatement of the judgment does not preclude defendant from appealing therefrom on the merits. Eighteen days will be available for that purpose after due service of a copy of the order of reinstatement together with notice of entry. (8 Carmody-Waite, New York Practice, p. 589, § 123; Fox v. Lindenman, 145 N. Y. S. 896.)

The order should be unanimously reversed upon the law, with $10 costs to the plaintiff and judgment in favor of plaintiff reinstated.

Concur — Habt, Di G-iovanna and Benjamin, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 Misc. 2d 76, 201 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/damico-v-damico-nyappterm-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack