In re Aumick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Aumick

279 A.D. 846, 109 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5039

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

DecidedJanuary 18, 1952

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D. 846 (In re Aumick) 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

In re Aumick, 279 A.D. 846, 109 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5039 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: The appellant married his wife, the respondent herein, after she had procured a judgment dissolving her marriage to a former husband pursuant to section 7-a of the Domestic Relations Law. Appellant’s motion nearly twelve years later, to set aside and vacate that judgment, was properly denied. No rights of the [847]*847appellant were invaded by that judgment. He is not an aggrieved party. (Krebs v. Krebs, 273 App. Div. 1054; Arcuri v. Arcuri, 265 N. Y. 358, and cases cited.) All concur. (Appeal from an order denying the application of Joseph P. Bloom to vacate an Enoch Arden decree of divorce procured by Bloom’s present wife against her former husband.) Present — Taylor, P. J., MeCurn, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.

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

Memorandum: The appellant married his wife, the respondent herein, after she had procured a judgment dissolving her marriage to a former husband pursuant to section 7-a of the Domestic Relations Law. Appellant’s motion nearly twelve years later, to set aside and vacate that judgment, was properly denied. No rights of the [847]*847appellant were invaded by that judgment. He is not an aggrieved party. (Krebs v. Krebs, 273 App. Div. 1054; Arcuri v. Arcuri, 265 N. Y. 358, and cases cited.) All concur. (Appeal from an order denying the application of Joseph P. Bloom to vacate an Enoch Arden decree of divorce procured by Bloom’s present wife against her former husband.) Present — Taylor, P. J., MeCurn, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D. 846, 109 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5039, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-aumick-nyappdiv-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack