Halvorsen v. Halvorsen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Halvorsen v. Halvorsen

88 A.D.2d 581, 449 N.Y.S.2d 798, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16748

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

DecidedMay 3, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 88 A.D.2d 581 (Halvorsen v. Halvorsen) 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

Halvorsen v. Halvorsen, 88 A.D.2d 581, 449 N.Y.S.2d 798, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16748 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a matrimonial action, the defendant wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Duberstein, J.), dated July 31, 1981, which denied her motion to vacate and set aside a judgment of divorce granted to the plaintiff husband on May 28, 1976. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith. In view of the closely contested factual dispute regarding service upon the defendant in the divorce action, it was error for the court to deny the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (subd [a], par 4) to vacate the resulting judgment without first conducting a hearing. The matter cannot be determined upon the conflicting affidavits [582]*582before the court. (See Dege v Mascot Realty Corp., 243 App Div 546; see, also, Antalek v Elliott, 26 AD2d 716; Matter of Roberts, 19 AD2d 391; cf. Weinberg v Hillbrae Bldrs., 58 AD2d 546.) Damiani, J. P., Lazer, Mangano and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

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

— In a matrimonial action, the defendant wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Duberstein, J.), dated July 31, 1981, which denied her motion to vacate and set aside a judgment of divorce granted to the plaintiff husband on May 28, 1976. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith. In view of the closely contested factual dispute regarding service upon the defendant in the divorce action, it was error for the court to deny the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (subd [a], par 4) to vacate the resulting judgment without first conducting a hearing. The matter cannot be determined upon the conflicting affidavits [582]*582before the court. (See Dege v Mascot Realty Corp., 243 App Div 546; see, also, Antalek v Elliott, 26 AD2d 716; Matter of Roberts, 19 AD2d 391; cf. Weinberg v Hillbrae Bldrs., 58 AD2d 546.) Damiani, J. P., Lazer, Mangano and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 581, 449 N.Y.S.2d 798, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/halvorsen-v-halvorsen-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack