Ruggieri v. Ruggieri

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ruggieri v. Ruggieri

24 A.D.2d 466, 260 N.Y.S.2d 615, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3995

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

DecidedJune 7, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 466 (Ruggieri v. Ruggieri) 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

Ruggieri v. Ruggieri, 24 A.D.2d 466, 260 N.Y.S.2d 615, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3995 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a judicial separation, for a declaration that a purported Mexican decree of divorce procured by the defendant husband is void, and for the recovery of moneys expended for necessaries, the plaintiff wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered January 25, 1965, which denied her motion to examine the defendant before trial as to his finances. Order affirmed, without costs. The plaintiff’s motion was properly denied because: (a) it was made returnable approximately nine months after she had served and filed a note of issue and statement of readi[467]*467ness; (b) no subsequently developed unusual or unanticipated conditions were shown which would warrant departure from the rule foreclosing such examination after filing of the note of issue and readiness statement. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a judicial separation, for a declaration that a purported Mexican decree of divorce procured by the defendant husband is void, and for the recovery of moneys expended for necessaries, the plaintiff wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered January 25, 1965, which denied her motion to examine the defendant before trial as to his finances. Order affirmed, without costs. The plaintiff’s motion was properly denied because: (a) it was made returnable approximately nine months after she had served and filed a note of issue and statement of readi[467]*467ness; (b) no subsequently developed unusual or unanticipated conditions were shown which would warrant departure from the rule foreclosing such examination after filing of the note of issue and readiness statement. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 466, 260 N.Y.S.2d 615, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3995, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruggieri-v-ruggieri-nyappdiv-1965.