Glick v. Glick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Glick v. Glick

112 A.D.2d 17

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

DecidedJune 4, 1985

DocketAppeal No. 2

StatusPublished

This text of 112 A.D.2d 17 (Glick v. Glick) 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

Glick v. Glick, 112 A.D.2d 17 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: Special Term erred in granting plaintiff permission to amend her complaint to include a cause of action to enforce a prenuptial agreement entered into in Canada, where the parties formerly resided. Although CPLR 302 (b) has been liberally construed to protect New York domiciliaries, plaintiff, a nondomiciliary, is required to show that defendant had "minimum contacts” within the State in order to satisfy due process requirements (see, International Shoe Co. v Washington, 326 US 310; Browne v Browne, 53 AD2d 134,136, appeal dismissed 40 NY2d 917). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Sullivan, J. — discovery.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Pine, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: Special Term erred in granting plaintiff permission to amend her complaint to include a cause of action to enforce a prenuptial agreement entered into in Canada, where the parties formerly resided. Although CPLR 302 (b) has been liberally construed to protect New York domiciliaries, plaintiff, a nondomiciliary, is required to show that defendant had "minimum contacts” within the State in order to satisfy due process requirements (see, International Shoe Co. v Washington, 326 US 310; Browne v Browne, 53 AD2d 134,136, appeal dismissed 40 NY2d 917). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Sullivan, J. — discovery.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.2d 17, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glick-v-glick-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack