Lasko v. Lasko

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lasko v. Lasko

232 A.D. 691

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 15, 1931·Published

Opinion

Order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to defendant to answer within five days from service of a copy of the order herein. Whether or not the defendant’s conduct as it may be evidenced under the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the complaint would sustain a decree of separation may only be determined upon the trial. (Pearson v. Pearson, 230 N. Y. 141; Tower v. Tower, 134 App. Div. 670.) As a matter of mere pleading paragraph 6 is sufficient in law. Paragraph 5, however, is insufficient. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

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

Order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to defendant to answer within five days from service of a copy of the order herein. Whether or not the defendant’s conduct as it may be evidenced under the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the complaint would sustain a decree of separation may only be determined upon the trial. (Pearson v. Pearson, 230 N. Y. 141; Tower v. Tower, 134 App. Div. 670.) As a matter of mere pleading paragraph 6 is sufficient in law. Paragraph 5, however, is insufficient. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

Lasko v. Lasko, 232 A.D. 691 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

232 A.D. 691 (Lasko v. Lasko) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related