Katebi v. Hooshiari

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Katebi v. Hooshiari

288 A.D.2d 188, 732 N.Y.S.2d 382, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10488

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 5, 2001·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Deutsch, J.H.O.), dated November 28, 2000, as, after a hearing, determined that the parties entered into a valid common-law marriage on February 1, 1988, and awarded the plaintiff temporary maintenance in the amount of $2,000 per month from September 1, 2000, retroactively, and an interim attorney’s fee in the amount of $35,000.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiff demonstrated that as a result of the parties’ sojourns in Pennsylvania and family vacations in Georgia, a valid common-law marriage existed under the laws of those states which was deserving of recognition under the principles of comity in New York (see, Scheinkman, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 14, Domestic Relations Law § 10, at 96-97; Carpenter v Carpenter, 208 AD2d 882). The Supreme Court resolved any evidentiary conflicts, and its findings of fact should not be disturbed (see, Tornese v Tornese, 233 AD2d 316).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Luciano, Smith and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Deutsch, J.H.O.), dated November 28, 2000, as, after a hearing, determined that the parties entered into a valid common-law marriage on February 1, 1988, and awarded the plaintiff temporary maintenance in the amount of $2,000 per month from September 1, 2000, retroactively, and an interim attorney’s fee in the amount of $35,000.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiff demonstrated that as a result of the parties’ sojourns in Pennsylvania and family vacations in Georgia, a valid common-law marriage existed under the laws of those states which was deserving of recognition under the principles of comity in New York (see, Scheinkman, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 14, Domestic Relations Law § 10, at 96-97; Carpenter v Carpenter, 208 AD2d 882). The Supreme Court resolved any evidentiary conflicts, and its findings of fact should not be disturbed (see, Tornese v Tornese, 233 AD2d 316).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Luciano, Smith and Crane, JJ., concur.

Katebi v. Hooshiari, 288 A.D.2d 188, 732 N.Y.S.2d 382, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10488 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

288 A.D.2d 188 (Katebi v. Hooshiari) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related