Ohms v. Ohms

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ohms v. Ohms

282 A.D. 1078, 126 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5863

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D. 1078 (Ohms v. Ohms) 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

Ohms v. Ohms, 282 A.D. 1078, 126 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5863 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant appeals from an order precluding him from giving evidence to establish adultery on the part of plaintiff, as alleged in defendant’s counterclaim, unless he serve a bill of particulars as to claimed acts of adultery. Order reversed, without costs, and motion for an order of preclusion denied, without costs. The previous order directing the service of a bill states, in effect, that if the bill recites that defendant relies on a general course of conduct, and not on specific acts of adultery, the bill need only particularize the acts of conduct from which it is claimed that adultery is to be inferred, and need not set forth specific acts of adultery. The bill which was served complies with the directions of the said previous order. Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MaeCrate, Schmidt and Beldock, JJ., concur.

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

Defendant appeals from an order precluding him from giving evidence to establish adultery on the part of plaintiff, as alleged in defendant’s counterclaim, unless he serve a bill of particulars as to claimed acts of adultery. Order reversed, without costs, and motion for an order of preclusion denied, without costs. The previous order directing the service of a bill states, in effect, that if the bill recites that defendant relies on a general course of conduct, and not on specific acts of adultery, the bill need only particularize the acts of conduct from which it is claimed that adultery is to be inferred, and need not set forth specific acts of adultery. The bill which was served complies with the directions of the said previous order. Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MaeCrate, Schmidt and Beldock, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D. 1078, 126 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ohms-v-ohms-nyappdiv-1953.