Hewitt v. Hewitt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hewitt v. Hewitt

29 A.D.2d 933, 289 N.Y.S.2d 50, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4234

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

DecidedApril 18, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 933 (Hewitt v. Hewitt) 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

Hewitt v. Hewitt, 29 A.D.2d 933, 289 N.Y.S.2d 50, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4234 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on December 1, 1967, denying plaintiff’s motion made pursuant to CPLR 3212 to strike defendant’s answer, dismiss the three affirmative defenses contained therein and for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of dismissing the first and third defenses, and as thus modified, affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to abide the event. In this action to recover arrears due under the terms of a separation agreement and for counsel fees and disbursements, defendant asserted, as his first defense, that the agreement was void as a matter of law and public policy and, as his third defense, that disputes under the agreement should be submitted to arbitration. However, in opposing plaintiff’s motion, defendant stated that he was not relying upon said defenses, thereby abandoning same. Again, upon this appeal, defendant stated that he “ does not rely on the defenses of arbitration [and] invalidity ”. Under the circumstances these defenses should be dismissed. We conclude, however, that there are issues of fact raised with respect to the second affirmative defense as set forth in the decision of Special Term. Concur — Eager, J. F., Capozzoli, Tilzer, McGivern and Rabin, JJ.

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

Order, entered on December 1, 1967, denying plaintiff’s motion made pursuant to CPLR 3212 to strike defendant’s answer, dismiss the three affirmative defenses contained therein and for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of dismissing the first and third defenses, and as thus modified, affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to abide the event. In this action to recover arrears due under the terms of a separation agreement and for counsel fees and disbursements, defendant asserted, as his first defense, that the agreement was void as a matter of law and public policy and, as his third defense, that disputes under the agreement should be submitted to arbitration. However, in opposing plaintiff’s motion, defendant stated that he was not relying upon said defenses, thereby abandoning same. Again, upon this appeal, defendant stated that he “ does not rely on the defenses of arbitration [and] invalidity ”. Under the circumstances these defenses should be dismissed. We conclude, however, that there are issues of fact raised with respect to the second affirmative defense as set forth in the decision of Special Term. Concur — Eager, J. F., Capozzoli, Tilzer, McGivern and Rabin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 933, 289 N.Y.S.2d 50, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hewitt-v-hewitt-nyappdiv-1968.