Ahmed v. Ahmed

55 A.D.3d 516, 865 N.Y.S.2d 610
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 7, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 55 A.D.3d 516 (Ahmed v. Ahmed) 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
Ahmed v. Ahmed, 55 A.D.3d 516, 865 N.Y.S.2d 610 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to annul a marriage and for ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Jamieson, J.), entered August 3, 2007, as, in effect, denied that branch of his motion which was to reject so much of the report of a Judicial Hearing Officer, dated October 27, 2006, as determined that the parties participated in a valid marriage ceremony and, in effect, granted that branch of the plaintiffs cross motion which was to confirm that part of the report.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant contends that the parties’ wedding ceremony was a “purely religious marriage” without any intended legal consequences. However, the evidence at the hearing supported the determination of the Judicial Hearing Officer (hereinafter JHO) that on February 5, 1991, the parties participated in a valid marriage ceremony which satisfied the requirements of the Domestic Relations Law (see Persad v Balram, 187 Misc 2d 711 [2001]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to reject so much of the JHO’s report as made that determination, and, in effect, properly granted that branch of the plaintiffs cross motion which was to confirm that part of the report.

The defendant’s contention that the plaintiff is not entitled to equitable distribution is not properly before this Court (see Smith v Lynch, 50 AD3d 881, 883 [2008]; Tenore v Tenore, 45 AD3d 571, 572 [2007]; Katz v Katz, 68 AD2d 536, 542-543 [1979]). Spolzino, J.P., Florio, Miller and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Funti v. Andrews
2026 NY Slip Op 00012 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2026)
Joseph v. Singh
2022 NY Slip Op 04158 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Devorah H. v. Steven S.
49 Misc. 3d 630 (New York Supreme Court, 2015)
Hirsh v. Stern
83 A.D.3d 783 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
55 A.D.3d 516, 865 N.Y.S.2d 610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ahmed-v-ahmed-nyappdiv-2008.