Hulis v. M. Foschi & Sons

124 A.D.2d 643, 507 N.Y.S.2d 898, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61945

This text of 124 A.D.2d 643 (Hulis v. M. Foschi & Sons) 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
Hulis v. M. Foschi & Sons, 124 A.D.2d 643, 507 N.Y.S.2d 898, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61945 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

The appellants’ respective cross motions for partial sum[644]*644mary judgment were properly denied as the evidence before the court presented a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff and the decedent had a valid common-law marriage under Georgia law. New York will recognize a common-law marriage if it was validly contracted in another State (Matter of Mott v Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51 NY2d 289). In denying the appellants’ cross motions, the court did not err in considering evidence that it had previously ruled excludable under CPLR 4519 (see, Phillips v Kantor & Co., 31 NY2d 307). Although it is unnecessary for the purposes of this appeal to determine if the court’s previous rulings under CPLR 4519 were correct, we note that the statute, by its terms, applies only where the prospective testimony is being offered against an administrator. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Niehoff and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Phillips v. Joseph Kantor & Co.
291 N.E.2d 129 (New York Court of Appeals, 1972)
Claim of Mott v. Duncan Petroleum Trans.
414 N.E.2d 657 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
124 A.D.2d 643, 507 N.Y.S.2d 898, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61945, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hulis-v-m-foschi-sons-nyappdiv-1986.