Sweeney v. Sweeney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sweeney v. Sweeney

259 A.D. 955, 19 N.Y.S.2d 891, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7419

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

DecidedMay 22, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D. 955 (Sweeney v. Sweeney) 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

Sweeney v. Sweeney, 259 A.D. 955, 19 N.Y.S.2d 891, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7419 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant has appealed from an order of the Special Term of the Supreme Court denying her motion to open a default judgment of separation entered against her and in favor of plaintiff on April 8,1938. Defendant had full knowledge as to the pendency of the separation action against her and, after consulting many lawyers, she permitted a default judgment to be taken. The- judgment of separation provides that plaintiff shall pay to defendant the sum of $250 a month for her support and maintenance. With that provision plaintiff has complied and is now complying. The Special Term properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion and the order appealed from should be affirmed. Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, Heffeman and Schenck, JJ.

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

Defendant has appealed from an order of the Special Term of the Supreme Court denying her motion to open a default judgment of separation entered against her and in favor of plaintiff on April 8,1938. Defendant had full knowledge as to the pendency of the separation action against her and, after consulting many lawyers, she permitted a default judgment to be taken. The- judgment of separation provides that plaintiff shall pay to defendant the sum of $250 a month for her support and maintenance. With that provision plaintiff has complied and is now complying. The Special Term properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion and the order appealed from should be affirmed. Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, Heffeman and Schenck, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D. 955, 19 N.Y.S.2d 891, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sweeney-v-sweeney-nyappdiv-1940.