In re the Estate of Balsam

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Balsam

275 A.D.2d 687

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 28, 1949·Published

Opinion

When prima facie proof of the validity of the Arkansas decree was produced by the moving party in support of the motion to strike out as sham the allegations respecting the invalidity of such divorce decree, it was the duty of appellant to come forward with proof to show that the allegations sought to be struck out were not, in fact, false. (Levy v. Jones, 269 App. Div. 295; Zwerdling v. Bent, 264 App. Div. 195; People v. McCumber, 18 N. Y. 315, 324-325.) In the absence of such proof, the motion to strike out as sham the allegations respecting the invalidity of the Arkansas divorce decree was properly granted. Nolan, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and MaeCrate, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 769.]

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

When prima facie proof of the validity of the Arkansas decree was produced by the moving party in support of the motion to strike out as sham the allegations respecting the invalidity of such divorce decree, it was the duty of appellant to come forward with proof to show that the allegations sought to be struck out were not, in fact, false. (Levy v. Jones, 269 App. Div. 295; Zwerdling v. Bent, 264 App. Div. 195; People v. McCumber, 18 N. Y. 315, 324-325.) In the absence of such proof, the motion to strike out as sham the allegations respecting the invalidity of the Arkansas divorce decree was properly granted. Nolan, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and MaeCrate, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 769.]

In re the Estate of Balsam, 275 A.D.2d 687 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

275 A.D.2d 687 (In re the Estate of Balsam) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related