Lee v. Lee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lee v. Lee

83 A.D.2d 841, 441 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15211

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

DecidedAugust 3, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 83 A.D.2d 841 (Lee v. Lee) 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

Lee v. Lee, 83 A.D.2d 841, 441 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15211 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In a “special proceeding”, inter alia, to “[v]acate the second decretal paragraph of the Findings and Judgment” of divorce of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated April 17, 1975, George Thomas Lee, Jr., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McCarthy, J.), dated August 11, 1980, which denied his application. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements (see Reeves v Reeves, 57 AD2d 661). We note that subdivision a of section 232 of the Domestic Relations Law was amended by the Laws of 1978 (ch 528, § 6) so as to provide that in an action for divorce, if the complainant is not “personally served” with the summons, in addition to the summons stating “ ‘Action for a divorce’ ”, it “shall specify the nature of any ancillary relief demanded.” This amendment, however, did not become effective until January 1, 1979. The summons at bar was served sometime prior to the 1975 divorce judgment. Titone, J.P., Gulotta, Cohalan and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In a “special proceeding”, inter alia, to “[v]acate the second decretal paragraph of the Findings and Judgment” of divorce of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated April 17, 1975, George Thomas Lee, Jr., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McCarthy, J.), dated August 11, 1980, which denied his application. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements (see Reeves v Reeves, 57 AD2d 661). We note that subdivision a of section 232 of the Domestic Relations Law was amended by the Laws of 1978 (ch 528, § 6) so as to provide that in an action for divorce, if the complainant is not “personally served” with the summons, in addition to the summons stating “ ‘Action for a divorce’ ”, it “shall specify the nature of any ancillary relief demanded.” This amendment, however, did not become effective until January 1, 1979. The summons at bar was served sometime prior to the 1975 divorce judgment. Titone, J.P., Gulotta, Cohalan and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.2d 841, 441 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-lee-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack