Maul v. Maul

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maul v. Maul

261 A.D. 984, 27 N.Y.S.2d 434, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8428

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D. 984 (Maul v. Maul) 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

Maul v. Maul, 261 A.D. 984, 27 N.Y.S.2d 434, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8428 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for absolute divorce, defendant’s motion to set aside judgment in favor of plaintiff and to set aside and vacate the summons and complaint and all proceedings theretofore had on the ground that defendant was never served with process was granted by order dated September 20, 1940. Plaintiff moved for reargument, which was granted, and on reargument the order of September 20, 1940, was vacated and plaintiff’s further motion to confirm the report of an official referee to the effeet that service of process had been made on defendant was granted. Defendant appeals from the order dated October 29, 1940, entered on such reargument. Order on reargument affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for absolute divorce, defendant’s motion to set aside judgment in favor of plaintiff and to set aside and vacate the summons and complaint and all proceedings theretofore had on the ground that defendant was never served with process was granted by order dated September 20, 1940. Plaintiff moved for reargument, which was granted, and on reargument the order of September 20, 1940, was vacated and plaintiff’s further motion to confirm the report of an official referee to the effeet that service of process had been made on defendant was granted. Defendant appeals from the order dated October 29, 1940, entered on such reargument. Order on reargument affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D. 984, 27 N.Y.S.2d 434, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maul-v-maul-nyappdiv-1941.