Dillard v. Dillard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dillard v. Dillard

204 A.D.2d 260, 611 N.Y.S.2d 590, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4556

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

DecidedMay 2, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 204 A.D.2d 260 (Dillard v. Dillard) 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

Dillard v. Dillard, 204 A.D.2d 260, 611 N.Y.S.2d 590, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4556 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to enforce a Texas divorce judgment, brought pursuant to CPLR 3213 as a motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, the defendant appeals from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), dated February 21, 1992, which, upon granting the motion, awarded the plaintiff $30,000, plus interest and costs.

Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the action is dismissed.

Since the defendant was never a domiciliary of Texas, and had no connections with that State, the Texas divorce judgment is divisible, and that portion of the judgment which directed him to pay $30,000 to the plaintiff wife should not have been afforded full faith and credit (see, Vanderbilt v Vanderbilt, 354 US 416; Estin v Estin, 334 US 541; Peterson v Goldberg, 180 AD2d 260, 262-263; Lansford v Lansford, 96 AD2d 832). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to enforce a Texas divorce judgment, brought pursuant to CPLR 3213 as a motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, the defendant appeals from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), dated February 21, 1992, which, upon granting the motion, awarded the plaintiff $30,000, plus interest and costs.

Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the action is dismissed.

Since the defendant was never a domiciliary of Texas, and had no connections with that State, the Texas divorce judgment is divisible, and that portion of the judgment which directed him to pay $30,000 to the plaintiff wife should not have been afforded full faith and credit (see, Vanderbilt v Vanderbilt, 354 US 416; Estin v Estin, 334 US 541; Peterson v Goldberg, 180 AD2d 260, 262-263; Lansford v Lansford, 96 AD2d 832). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 260, 611 N.Y.S.2d 590, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dillard-v-dillard-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack