Wareham v. Wareham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wareham v. Wareham

34 A.D.2d 647, 309 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5187

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

DecidedApril 6, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 34 A.D.2d 647 (Wareham v. Wareham) 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

Wareham v. Wareham, 34 A.D.2d 647, 309 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5187 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

In a support proceeding, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, entered June 10, 1969, which denied appellant’s motion for a rehearing of the proceeding. Order affirmed, without costs. The prior order dated September 27, 1967 is binding as to all matters that were litigated or should have been litigated. Since the matter now alleged does not fall into the category of newly discovered evidence, it was proper to deny a reopening of the issues inherently decided under the order of September 27, 1967 (Statter v. Statter, 2 N Y 2d 668; Matter of Merritt v. Merritt, 259 App. Div. 242, app. dsmd. 285 N. Y. 561). Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In a support proceeding, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, entered June 10, 1969, which denied appellant’s motion for a rehearing of the proceeding. Order affirmed, without costs. The prior order dated September 27, 1967 is binding as to all matters that were litigated or should have been litigated. Since the matter now alleged does not fall into the category of newly discovered evidence, it was proper to deny a reopening of the issues inherently decided under the order of September 27, 1967 (Statter v. Statter, 2 N Y 2d 668; Matter of Merritt v. Merritt, 259 App. Div. 242, app. dsmd. 285 N. Y. 561). Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 647, 309 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wareham-v-wareham-nyappdiv-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack