In re Aumick

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

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] appellant 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

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).

279 A.D. 846 (In re Aumick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Arcuri v. Arcuri
193 N.E. 174 (New York Court of Appeals, 1934)
Krebs v. Krebs
273 A.D. 1054 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1948)