Weber v. Weber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weber v. Weber

69 A.D.2d 834, 415 N.Y.S.2d 85, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11510

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

DecidedApril 9, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 69 A.D.2d 834 (Weber v. Weber) 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

Weber v. Weber, 69 A.D.2d 834, 415 N.Y.S.2d 85, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11510 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action, in which the plaintiff husband was granted a judgment of divorce following an inquest upon defendant’s default in answering, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, entered October 5, 1978, which denied her motion to vacate the judgment of divorce. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and matter remanded to Special Term for a hearing on the issue of the wife’s alleged excusable neglect. The wife attributes her failure to serve a timely answer to the husband’s complaint and the ensuing default to the neglect of her former attorney. In opposition the husband contends that it was her [835]*835procrastination, not her attorney’s, which was responsible for what has transpired. Under the circumstances, the motion to vacate the default judgment should not have been denied without a hearing (see Hokin v Hokin, 40 AD2d 774). Mollen, P. J., Suozzi, O’Connor and Mangano, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action, in which the plaintiff husband was granted a judgment of divorce following an inquest upon defendant’s default in answering, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, entered October 5, 1978, which denied her motion to vacate the judgment of divorce. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and matter remanded to Special Term for a hearing on the issue of the wife’s alleged excusable neglect. The wife attributes her failure to serve a timely answer to the husband’s complaint and the ensuing default to the neglect of her former attorney. In opposition the husband contends that it was her [835]*835procrastination, not her attorney’s, which was responsible for what has transpired. Under the circumstances, the motion to vacate the default judgment should not have been denied without a hearing (see Hokin v Hokin, 40 AD2d 774). Mollen, P. J., Suozzi, O’Connor and Mangano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.2d 834, 415 N.Y.S.2d 85, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weber-v-weber-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack