Hoffman v. Hoffman

228 A.2d 87, 94 N.J. Super. 292, 1967 N.J. Super. LEXIS 618
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
DecidedMarch 22, 1967
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 228 A.2d 87 (Hoffman v. Hoffman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hoffman v. Hoffman, 228 A.2d 87, 94 N.J. Super. 292, 1967 N.J. Super. LEXIS 618 (N.J. Ct. App. 1967).

Opinion

[293]*293The opinion of the court was delivered by

Sullivan, S. J. A. D.

We are satisfied that the dismissal of plaintiff’s suit for divorce should be affirmed. The alleged acts of cruelty committed by defendant on which plaintiff bottomed his claims of extreme cruelty and constructive desertion admittedly took place while the parties were domiciled in New York.

We are in full accord with the holding in Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 66 N. J. Super. 277, 284 (Ch. Div. 1961) that where all of the acts of extreme cruelty occurred while the parties were domiciled in a State which does not recognize such acts as constituting a cause of action for absolute divorce, they cannot constitute a basis of a cause of action for divorce in New Jersey either on the ground of extreme cruelty or constructive desertion. See N. J. S. 2A:34-10(2).

Affirmed.

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

Related

D. S. v. J. S.
247 A.2d 125 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1968)
Ds v. Js
247 A.2d 125 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
228 A.2d 87, 94 N.J. Super. 292, 1967 N.J. Super. LEXIS 618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoffman-v-hoffman-njsuperctappdiv-1967.