Powell v. Powell

114 A.D.2d 443, 494 N.Y.S.2d 359, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53137
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 21, 1985
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 114 A.D.2d 443 (Powell v. Powell) 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
Powell v. Powell, 114 A.D.2d 443, 494 N.Y.S.2d 359, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53137 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

—In an action for divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated February 8, 1983, which, after a traverse hearing, denied his motion to vacate the judgment of divorce on the ground he was not served with process.

Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and matter remitted to Special Term for a new traverse hearing and determination.

Upon completion of testimony at a traverse hearing, the court found in the plaintiff wife’s favor, ruling that in view of "the testimony of all of the witnesses and considering that the defendant Ralston Powell has the burden of establishing by a [444]*444preponderance of the credible evidence that in fact service * * * was not made, the Court must dismiss the proceeding on the grounds that the defendant * * * has not carried the burden of proof and, in fact, has not established to the Court’s satisfaction that in fact he was not the person served * * * [as] asserted * * * in the affidavit of service”. This was error. It is well established that it is the plaintiff who bears the ultimate burden of proving by preponderating evidence that jurisdiction over the defendant was obtained (see, Saratoga Harness Racing Assn. v Moss, 26 AD2d 486, affd 20 NY2d 733; Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v Arrao, 100 AD2d 949; Jacobs v Zurich Ins. Co., 53 AD2d 524). Under the circumstances of this case, since the court failed to apply the proper standard in weighing the evidence, a new traverse hearing is ordered. Lazer, J. P., O’Connor, Niehoff and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Kathleen T.K. v. Eric C.S.
2020 NY Slip Op 2266 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Peralta
142 A.D.3d 988 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Fleming v. Fleming
285 A.D.2d 528 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Wern v. D'Alessandro
219 A.D.2d 646 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Career Directions, Inc. v. F & K Supply, Inc.
215 A.D.2d 806 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Miller v. Irwin
202 A.D.2d 344 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Corchia v. Junik
158 A.D.2d 574 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Frankel v. Schilling
149 A.D.2d 657 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Torres v. Corpus
131 A.D.2d 463 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Aquila v. Aquila
129 A.D.2d 544 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Lexington Insurance v. Schuyler Bumpers, Inc.
125 A.D.2d 554 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
114 A.D.2d 443, 494 N.Y.S.2d 359, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/powell-v-powell-nyappdiv-1985.