Goldman v. Goldman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldman v. Goldman

224 A.D.2d 253, 638 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1010

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

DecidedFebruary 8, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 224 A.D.2d 253 (Goldman v. Goldman) 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

Goldman v. Goldman, 224 A.D.2d 253, 638 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1010 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lo-bis, J.), entered on or about June 5, 1995, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3213 based on a judgment of Passaic County Superior Court, Probate Division, New Jersey, unanimously affirmed, with costs to be paid by defendant-appellant personally.

Contrary to defendant’s contention, Matter of Pearson v Pearson (69 NY2d 919) does not bar discretionary enforcement of nonfinal foreign decrees (see, Mittenthal v Mittenthal, 99 Misc 2d 778), but merely limits enforcemt of foreign decrees to those that are extant and otherwise valid. Given the extensive record developed in the New Jersey proceeding showing deception and evasiveness on defendant’s part, and that defendant had ample opportunity to advance his claims or defenses in that proceeding, enforcement of the New Jersey judgment was a proper exercise of discretion. We also reject defendant’s contention that aspects of the New Jersey judgment unlawfully restrain his ability to practice law, and note the cautionary measures taken by the IAS Court in that regard. We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lo-bis, J.), entered on or about June 5, 1995, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3213 based on a judgment of Passaic County Superior Court, Probate Division, New Jersey, unanimously affirmed, with costs to be paid by defendant-appellant personally.

Contrary to defendant’s contention, Matter of Pearson v Pearson (69 NY2d 919) does not bar discretionary enforcement of nonfinal foreign decrees (see, Mittenthal v Mittenthal, 99 Misc 2d 778), but merely limits enforcemt of foreign decrees to those that are extant and otherwise valid. Given the extensive record developed in the New Jersey proceeding showing deception and evasiveness on defendant’s part, and that defendant had ample opportunity to advance his claims or defenses in that proceeding, enforcement of the New Jersey judgment was a proper exercise of discretion. We also reject defendant’s contention that aspects of the New Jersey judgment unlawfully restrain his ability to practice law, and note the cautionary measures taken by the IAS Court in that regard. We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 253, 638 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1010, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldman-v-goldman-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack