D'Amico v. D'Amico

26 Misc. 2d 76, 201 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2912
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided May 31, 1960·Published

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

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).

26 Misc. 2d 76 (D'Amico v. D'Amico) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sistare v. Sistare
218 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1910)
Scott v. Scott
90 So. 2d 813 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1956)
Rochelle v. Rochelle
179 So. 825 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1938)
Epps v. Epps
120 So. 150 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1929)
Smith v. Smith
255 A.D. 652 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1939)
Hafstad v. Hafstad
20 Misc. 2d 979 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)