Fink v. Goldblatt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fink v. Goldblatt

18 A.D.2d 629, 235 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6450

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

DecidedDecember 11, 1962

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 18 A.D.2d 629 (Fink v. Goldblatt) 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

Fink v. Goldblatt, 18 A.D.2d 629, 235 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6450 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on May 9, 1962, so far as appealed from, denying defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion granted, with $10 costs. The Mexican decree approves and incorporates the separation agreement and orders the parties to comply with it. As the validity of the decree is in no wise questioned, its consequent recognition by our courts (see Gould v. Gould, 235 N. Y. 14, 28, 29) precludes the impairment of its mandate which the requested annulment of the agreement would entail (Rehill v. Rehill, 306 N. Y. 126; Schacht v. Schacht, 295 N. Y. 439; Calderon v. Calderon, 275 App. Div. 251; Hoyt v. Hoyt, 265 App. Div. 223). Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ. [33 Misc 2d 454.]

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

Order, entered on May 9, 1962, so far as appealed from, denying defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion granted, with $10 costs. The Mexican decree approves and incorporates the separation agreement and orders the parties to comply with it. As the validity of the decree is in no wise questioned, its consequent recognition by our courts (see Gould v. Gould, 235 N. Y. 14, 28, 29) precludes the impairment of its mandate which the requested annulment of the agreement would entail (Rehill v. Rehill, 306 N. Y. 126; Schacht v. Schacht, 295 N. Y. 439; Calderon v. Calderon, 275 App. Div. 251; Hoyt v. Hoyt, 265 App. Div. 223). Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ. [33 Misc 2d 454.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 629, 235 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fink-v-goldblatt-nyappdiv-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack