Gioia v. Gioia

245 A.D. 373, 282 N.Y.S. 852, 1935 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10307
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 9, 1935·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The summons and complaint in this action were served on defendant who understood their contents and destroyed the papers. Defendant is guilty of laches since she did not make this motion until about thirteen months after the final decree was entered. It is clear that defendant has not outlined a meritorious defense to plaintiff’s action. If the fact be that she fraudulently participated in bringing about a judgment of divorce against herself in plaintiff’s favor, she is barred thereby.from the relief she now seeks, (Kinnier v. Kinnier, 53 Barb. 454; affd., 45 N. Y. 535; [374] Karren v. Karren, 25 Utah, 87; 69 P. 465.) In addition the interests of the innocent second wife of plaintiff and of their child appeal to the conscience of the court.

All concur. Present — Sears, P. J., Taylor, Edgcomb, Thompson and Lewis, JJ.

Order reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and motion denied, without costs.

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

Gioia v. Gioia, 245 A.D. 373, 282 N.Y.S. 852, 1935 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10307 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

245 A.D. 373 (Gioia v. Gioia) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Raskin v. Raskin
2004 NY Slip Op 50788(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2004)
Krupinski v. Krupinski
20 A.D.2d 719 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1964)
Coleman v. Coleman
28 Misc. 2d 994 (New York Supreme Court, 1961)
Bigelow v. Bigelow
27 Misc. 2d 124 (New York Supreme Court, 1961)
Imbrici v. Madison Avenue Realty Corp.
199 Misc. 244 (New York Supreme Court, 1950)