Norton v. Norton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Norton v. Norton

248 A.D. 784

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

DecidedJune 15, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D. 784 (Norton v. Norton) 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

Norton v. Norton, 248 A.D. 784 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to set aside a separation agreement, order in so far as it grants defendant’s motion to vacate notice of examination before trial as to item 3 of the notice and vacates items 1 and 2 as to the years 1930 and 1931 reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion to vacate denied, with ten dollars costs; the examination to proceed on five days’ notice. We are of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to examine the defendant not only with reference to his financial condition during the year in which the contract was made, but for the two preceding years, in order that the court may determine the financial condition of the defendant at the time the contract was made. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to set aside a separation agreement, order in so far as it grants defendant’s motion to vacate notice of examination before trial as to item 3 of the notice and vacates items 1 and 2 as to the years 1930 and 1931 reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion to vacate denied, with ten dollars costs; the examination to proceed on five days’ notice. We are of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to examine the defendant not only with reference to his financial condition during the year in which the contract was made, but for the two preceding years, in order that the court may determine the financial condition of the defendant at the time the contract was made. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D. 784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norton-v-norton-nyappdiv-1936.