Garfunkel v. Garfunkel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garfunkel v. Garfunkel

118 A.D.2d 517, 500 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54379

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

DecidedMarch 25, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 118 A.D.2d 517 (Garfunkel v. Garfunkel) 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

Garfunkel v. Garfunkel, 118 A.D.2d 517, 500 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54379 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Hortense W. Gabel, J.), entered on May 25, 1984, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and declared a Haitian judgment of divorce and a separation agreement between the parties incorporated but not merged therein to be valid and binding, unanimously modified, on the law, to declare merely that plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought in the complaint, and otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with Special Term’s analysis that the complaint, which challenges the validity of a bilateral Haitian decree of divorce and separation agreement, incorporated but not merged therein, is deficient as a matter of law, and therefore affirm the grant of defendant’s motion to dismiss. Since the merits of plaintiff’s claims were only tangentially reached, however, defendant is entitled to no more than a declaration that plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought in the complaint (see, Greschler v Greschler, 51 NY2d 368), and we modify accordingly. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Carro, Fein and Ellerin, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Hortense W. Gabel, J.), entered on May 25, 1984, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and declared a Haitian judgment of divorce and a separation agreement between the parties incorporated but not merged therein to be valid and binding, unanimously modified, on the law, to declare merely that plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought in the complaint, and otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with Special Term’s analysis that the complaint, which challenges the validity of a bilateral Haitian decree of divorce and separation agreement, incorporated but not merged therein, is deficient as a matter of law, and therefore affirm the grant of defendant’s motion to dismiss. Since the merits of plaintiff’s claims were only tangentially reached, however, defendant is entitled to no more than a declaration that plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought in the complaint (see, Greschler v Greschler, 51 NY2d 368), and we modify accordingly. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Carro, Fein and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.2d 517, 500 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garfunkel-v-garfunkel-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack