O'Hara v. O'Hara

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Hara v. O'Hara

282 A.D. 855, 124 N.Y.S.2d 717, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5201

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D. 855 (O'Hara v. O'Hara) 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

O'Hara v. O'Hara, 282 A.D. 855, 124 N.Y.S.2d 717, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5201 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion denied. On its face the stipulation precluded this application within the five-year period. Insufficient proof was submitted to show that the later developments were not contemplated in or at the time of the stipulation. Nor was it adequately shown that the developments were such to jusify relieving plaintiff wife of the terms of the stipulation or the judgment entered thereon. Consequently, it is not necessary to consider whether power existed to modify the judgment in this particular. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Breitel and Botein, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion denied. On its face the stipulation precluded this application within the five-year period. Insufficient proof was submitted to show that the later developments were not contemplated in or at the time of the stipulation. Nor was it adequately shown that the developments were such to jusify relieving plaintiff wife of the terms of the stipulation or the judgment entered thereon. Consequently, it is not necessary to consider whether power existed to modify the judgment in this particular. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Breitel and Botein, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D. 855, 124 N.Y.S.2d 717, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ohara-v-ohara-nyappdiv-1953.