Gomez v. Gomez

New York Court of Appeals

Gomez v. Gomez

437 N.E.2d 272, 56 N.Y.2d 746, 452 N.Y.S.2d 13, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3400

New York Court of Appeals·Decided May 13, 1982·Published·Cited by 24 cases

Opinion

[748]*748OPINION OF THE COURT

Order affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division (86 AD2d 594), to which we add, in view of petitioner’s argument that jurisdiction has now been acquired by reason of the infant’s presence in New York during the pendency of this proceeding, that our courts having been without jurisdiction when the proceeding was begun, the sojourn of the child in New York as a result of orders made without jurisdiction cannot result in the acquisition of jurisdiction.

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.

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

[748]*748OPINION OF THE COURT

Order affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division (86 AD2d 594), to which we add, in view of petitioner’s argument that jurisdiction has now been acquired by reason of the infant’s presence in New York during the pendency of this proceeding, that our courts having been without jurisdiction when the proceeding was begun, the sojourn of the child in New York as a result of orders made without jurisdiction cannot result in the acquisition of jurisdiction.

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.

Gomez v. Gomez, 437 N.E.2d 272, 56 N.Y.2d 746, 452 N.Y.S.2d 13, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3400 (N.Y. 1982).

Pincite

437 N.E.2d 272 (Gomez v. Gomez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related