Legal Opinion

O'Meara v. O'Meara

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

Decided July 2, 1951PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

In an action brought to divest defendant of title, or of any interest in or to certain real property acquired by the parties during their marriage, defendant appeals from a judgment which grants plaintiff’s motion to strike out her answer as sham, pursuant to rule 104 of the Rules of Civil Practice, and adjudges that plaintiff is the sole owner of the property in suit. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and plaintiff’s motion to strike out defendant’s answer denied, without costs. The record establishes that subsequent to the acquisition of the property the marriage of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. American Surety Co. v. ConnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1929
  2. Stelz v. . ShreckNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
  3. Bell v. LittleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
  4. Armondi v. DunhamAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1927
  5. Bambauer v. SchleiderAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1917

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Emmons v. SandersOregon Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Broadhurst v. BroadhurstAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1975
  3. Hildebrand v. HildebrandAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1966

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API