From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taylor v. Taylor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 13, 1981
84 A.D.2d 947 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Opinion

November 13, 1981

Appeal from the Oneida Supreme Court, O'Donnell, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Hancock, Jr., Doerr, Denman and Moule, JJ.


Order unanimously modified, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Plaintiff appeals from an order granting defendant, her former husband, leave to file an amended answer in plaintiff's action against him to collect sums allegedly owing under a separation agreement. Of the several affirmative defenses and counterclaims contained in the amended answer, plaintiff objects specifically to the first in which defendant seeks to invalidate the separation agreement on the ground that he was not mentally competent to make the contract and because of certain alleged misrepresentations made by plaintiff. The separation agreement was executed on February 15, 1975. By a decree dated December 10, 1976, plaintiff obtained a divorce from defendant pursuant to subdivision (6) of section 170 of the Domestic Relations Law, after a trial in which defendant appeared and in which he had filed an answer admitting the due execution of the agreement, that the parties had lived separate and apart for more than one year pursuant thereto, and that plaintiff had duly performed the conditions thereof. Inasmuch as defendant had a full and fair opportunity to contest the validity of the separation agreement in the divorce action in which the validity of the agreement was necessarily established by the court's decree and findings, he may not be heard to attack the decree in the instant action. While permission to serve amended pleadings should be freely given (CPLR 3025, subd [b]), a pleading which is totally devoid of merit should not be allowed (see Town Bd. of Town of Fallsburgh v. National Sur. Corp., 53 Misc.2d 23, 24, affd 29 A.D.2d 726; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3025:11, p 481; 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y. Civ Prac, pars 3025.15, 3025.23). The order, therefore, is modified by denying the motion to serve an amended answer with respect to the first affirmative defense and counterclaim.


Summaries of

Taylor v. Taylor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 13, 1981
84 A.D.2d 947 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)
Case details for

Taylor v. Taylor

Case Details

Full title:RUTH E. TAYLOR, Appellant, v. JAMES I. TAYLOR, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Nov 13, 1981

Citations

84 A.D.2d 947 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Citing Cases

Zandell v. Zerbe

Leave to amend pleadings "shall be freely given" (CPLR 3025 [b]; Fahey v County of Ontario, 44 N.Y.2d 934).…

YULA v. YULA

Indeed, this court has explicitly held it erroneous to require a showing of injury on the defendant's part to…