From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Munkacsi v. Munkacsi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 1, 1957
4 A.D.2d 854 (N.Y. App. Div. 1957)

Opinion

October 1, 1957


It is clear that the default in this case was not inadvertent. However, defendant claims that she was misled by the legal advice she received. In view of the fact that this action would finally determine the matrimonial status of the parties it should not be disposed of on default. We feel therefore that the default should be opened ( Steele v. Steele, 3 A.D.2d 826; Vanderhorst v. Vanderhorst, 282 App. Div. 312). This relief will be granted only on condition that defendant will submit the question of custody of the child to the jurisdiction of this court and will bring the child before the court for that purpose. Order reversed and motion to vacate default granted, without costs. Settle order.

Concur — Peck, P.J., Rabin, Frank, Valente and McNally, JJ.


Summaries of

Munkacsi v. Munkacsi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 1, 1957
4 A.D.2d 854 (N.Y. App. Div. 1957)
Case details for

Munkacsi v. Munkacsi

Case Details

Full title:MARTIN MUNKACSI, Respondent, v. HELEN L. MUNKACSI, Appellant

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

Date published: Oct 1, 1957

Citations

4 A.D.2d 854 (N.Y. App. Div. 1957)

Citing Cases

Revson v. Revson

In that connection the court added: "Though the default in pleading here was not inadvertent, in the public…

Price v. Price

`It has repeatedly been held that the general rule in respect to opening defaults in ordinary actions is not…