Frischman v. Frischman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Frischman v. Frischman

275 A.D.2d 860

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

DecidedMay 31, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 860 (Frischman v. Frischman) 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

Frischman v. Frischman, 275 A.D.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

That order was superseded by the order granting reargument and adhering to the original decision. If defendant fraudulently induced the plaintiff to resume marital relations and if, in fact, he did not intend in good faith to be reconciled, or continued his intimacy with the corespondent, he cannot avoid compliance with the order directing payment of alimony and counsel fee. (Johnson v. J ohnson, 14 Wend. 637; Betz v. Betz, 19 Abb. Prac. 90; Deisler v. Deisler, 59 App. Div. 207, 214; Beale v. Avery, 277 Mass. 332.) In view of the contradiction in the affidavits submitted on this motion, Special Term could not properly dispose of it without oral proof. In the cases relied upon by Special Term there was no dispute that a bona fide reconciliation had taken place. Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur.

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

That order was superseded by the order granting reargument and adhering to the original decision. If defendant fraudulently induced the plaintiff to resume marital relations and if, in fact, he did not intend in good faith to be reconciled, or continued his intimacy with the corespondent, he cannot avoid compliance with the order directing payment of alimony and counsel fee. (Johnson v. J ohnson, 14 Wend. 637; Betz v. Betz, 19 Abb. Prac. 90; Deisler v. Deisler, 59 App. Div. 207, 214; Beale v. Avery, 277 Mass. 332.) In view of the contradiction in the affidavits submitted on this motion, Special Term could not properly dispose of it without oral proof. In the cases relied upon by Special Term there was no dispute that a bona fide reconciliation had taken place. Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frischman-v-frischman-nyappdiv-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack