Mitsakos v. Mitsakos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mitsakos v. Mitsakos

49 A.D.2d 767, 372 N.Y.S.2d 726, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10764

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 A.D.2d 767 (Mitsakos v. Mitsakos) 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

Mitsakos v. Mitsakos, 49 A.D.2d 767, 372 N.Y.S.2d 726, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10764 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action in which the plaintiff husband was granted a judgment of divorce, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 14, 1975, which denied her motion to open her default and set aside the judgment. Order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. [768]*768Several factors, including defendant’s deliberate failure to contest the divorce, her delay in moving to vacate the judgment, her use of the amount of the child support provision in the judgment as a predicate for the application she made for an increase in such support, and plaintiffs remarriage, indicate that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to grant the motion. Rabin, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Margett and Christ, JJ., concur.

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

In an action in which the plaintiff husband was granted a judgment of divorce, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 14, 1975, which denied her motion to open her default and set aside the judgment. Order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. [768]*768Several factors, including defendant’s deliberate failure to contest the divorce, her delay in moving to vacate the judgment, her use of the amount of the child support provision in the judgment as a predicate for the application she made for an increase in such support, and plaintiffs remarriage, indicate that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to grant the motion. Rabin, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Margett and Christ, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 767, 372 N.Y.S.2d 726, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitsakos-v-mitsakos-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack