Munkacsi v. Munkacsi

4 A.D.2d 854, 166 N.Y.S.2d 473, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4432
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 1, 1957·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

It is clear that the default in this case was not inadvertent. However, defendant claims that she was' misled by the legal advice she received. In view of the fact that this action would finally determine the matrimonial status of the parties it should not be disposed of on default. We feel therefore that the default should be opened (Steele v. Steele, 3 A D 2d 826; Vanderhorst v. Vanderhorst, 282 App. Div. 312). This relief will be granted only on condition that defendant will submit the question of custody of the child to the jurisdiction of this court and will bring the child before the court for that purpose. Order reversed and motion to vacate default granted, without costs. Settle order. Concur — Peck, P. J., Rabin, Frank, Valente and McNally, JJ.

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

Munkacsi v. Munkacsi, 4 A.D.2d 854, 166 N.Y.S.2d 473, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4432 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

4 A.D.2d 854 (Munkacsi v. Munkacsi) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Perreca v. Perreca
113 Misc. 2d 591 (New York Supreme Court, 1982)
Haas v. Haas
84 A.D.2d 702 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Chou v. Chou
73 A.D.2d 681 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
Price v. Price
52 A.D.2d 800 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)