Paasch v. Paasch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Paasch v. Paasch

144 A.D.2d 916, 534 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14365

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 144 A.D.2d 916 (Paasch v. Paasch) 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

Paasch v. Paasch, 144 A.D.2d 916, 534 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14365 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion granted. Memorandum: Special Term improvidently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to vacate a default order granting his ex-wife’s motion to modify their 1971 divorce decree to provide alimony for the first time, as well as to increase child support. Plaintiff showed that his delay was of short duration and was caused by law office failure, and he alleged that his former wife had remarried. She disputes that allegation, but if it is true, it would bar alimony (Domestic Relations Law § 248); so, a meritorious defense has been stated. Plaintiffs showing is sufficient for relief (see, Fidelity & Deposit Co. v Andersen & Co., 60 NY2d 693, 695). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Wagner, J. — vacate judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion granted. Memorandum: Special Term improvidently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to vacate a default order granting his ex-wife’s motion to modify their 1971 divorce decree to provide alimony for the first time, as well as to increase child support. Plaintiff showed that his delay was of short duration and was caused by law office failure, and he alleged that his former wife had remarried. She disputes that allegation, but if it is true, it would bar alimony (Domestic Relations Law § 248); so, a meritorious defense has been stated. Plaintiffs showing is sufficient for relief (see, Fidelity & Deposit Co. v Andersen & Co., 60 NY2d 693, 695). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Wagner, J. — vacate judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 A.D.2d 916, 534 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paasch-v-paasch-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack