Hettich v. Hettich

New York Court of Appeals

Hettich v. Hettich

95 N.E.2d 40, 301 N.Y. 447

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 19, 1950

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 95 N.E.2d 40 (Hettich v. Hettich) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hettich v. Hettich, 95 N.E.2d 40, 301 N.Y. 447 (N.Y. 1950).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The third affirmative defense to the first cause of action cannot be a complete defense in view of the admitted failure to pay installments due under the 1932 agreement for the months of June, July and August, 1935. Moreover, the agreement alleged in said defense upon its face violates the public policy exemplified in section 51 of the Domestic Relations Law, in that it has a direct tendency toward dissolving the marriage between the parties and was by its terms entered into in order to facilitate “ their divorce action ” (Harris v. Harris, 287 N. Y. 444, 448; Schley v. Andrews, 225 N. Y. 110).

The order should be affirmed, with costs. The first question certified is answered in the negative, the second question certified answered in the affirmative and the third question certified not answered.

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

Per Curiam.

The third affirmative defense to the first cause of action cannot be a complete defense in view of the admitted failure to pay installments due under the 1932 agreement for the months of June, July and August, 1935. Moreover, the agreement alleged in said defense upon its face violates the public policy exemplified in section 51 of the Domestic Relations Law, in that it has a direct tendency toward dissolving the marriage between the parties and was by its terms entered into in order to facilitate “ their divorce action ” (Harris v. Harris, 287 N. Y. 444, 448; Schley v. Andrews, 225 N. Y. 110).

The order should be affirmed, with costs. The first question certified is answered in the negative, the second question certified answered in the affirmative and the third question certified not answered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 N.E.2d 40, 301 N.Y. 447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hettich-v-hettich-ny-1950.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack