Kadyorios v. Nelson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kadyorios v. Nelson

24 A.D.3d 233, 805 N.Y.S.2d 280

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

DecidedDecember 15, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.3d 233 (Kadyorios v. Nelson) 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

Kadyorios v. Nelson, 24 A.D.3d 233, 805 N.Y.S.2d 280 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ira R. Globerman, J.), entered March 22, 2005, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint seeking a divorce and distribution of marital property, unanimously ¿[firmed, without costs.

The pleadings stated a cause of action that was sufficient to overcome the motion to dismiss. As the validity of the ex parte Dominican Republic divorce has not yet been determined, plaintiff cannot, as yet, be barred by the doctrine of res judicata from seeking ancillary relief, and dismissal on the basis of the prior divorce would be premature (see Kushnick v Kushnick, 196 Misc 2d 140 [2003]). We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ira R. Globerman, J.), entered March 22, 2005, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint seeking a divorce and distribution of marital property, unanimously ¿[firmed, without costs.

The pleadings stated a cause of action that was sufficient to overcome the motion to dismiss. As the validity of the ex parte Dominican Republic divorce has not yet been determined, plaintiff cannot, as yet, be barred by the doctrine of res judicata from seeking ancillary relief, and dismissal on the basis of the prior divorce would be premature (see Kushnick v Kushnick, 196 Misc 2d 140 [2003]). We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.3d 233, 805 N.Y.S.2d 280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kadyorios-v-nelson-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack