Link v. Link

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Link v. Link

48 A.D.2d 902, 369 N.Y.S.2d 496, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10168

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

DecidedJune 23, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 48 A.D.2d 902 (Link v. Link) 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

Link v. Link, 48 A.D.2d 902, 369 N.Y.S.2d 496, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10168 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to annul a marriage, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered March 10, 1975, which dismissed the complaint after an uncontested nonjury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the marriage is annulled; action remanded to Special Term for the entry of an appropriate judgment in accordance herewith. Plaintiff sufficiently established that, before the marriage, defendant falsely represented to her that he intended to have children; that defendant then knew such representations to be false and fraudulent; that plaintiff believed defendant’s representations, married him in reliance thereon and would not have married him if she had known that he did not intend to have children; and that when defendant’s true intentions surfaced, she no longer cohabited with him, and thus did not cohabit with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud. Under these circumstances, an annulment should have been granted (Rich v Rich, 40 AD2d 846). Rabin, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to annul a marriage, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered March 10, 1975, which dismissed the complaint after an uncontested nonjury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the marriage is annulled; action remanded to Special Term for the entry of an appropriate judgment in accordance herewith. Plaintiff sufficiently established that, before the marriage, defendant falsely represented to her that he intended to have children; that defendant then knew such representations to be false and fraudulent; that plaintiff believed defendant’s representations, married him in reliance thereon and would not have married him if she had known that he did not intend to have children; and that when defendant’s true intentions surfaced, she no longer cohabited with him, and thus did not cohabit with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud. Under these circumstances, an annulment should have been granted (Rich v Rich, 40 AD2d 846). Rabin, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.2d 902, 369 N.Y.S.2d 496, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/link-v-link-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack