MacGilvray v. MacGilvray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

MacGilvray v. MacGilvray

53 A.D.2d 688, 386 N.Y.S.2d 639, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13438

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

DecidedJune 28, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 53 A.D.2d 688 (MacGilvray v. MacGilvray) 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

MacGilvray v. MacGilvray, 53 A.D.2d 688, 386 N.Y.S.2d 639, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13438 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover moneys due and owing under a separation agreement, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered September 9, 1975, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In this action, moneys are allegedly due under a separation agreement which antedates the parties’ divorce. Respondent’s intestate, appellant’s former wife, obtained personal jurisdiction over appellant upon service of the summons and complaint on him. Jurisdiction lies under the authority of Kochenthal v Kochenthal (28 AD2d 117); any reservations to the contrary, as in the case of Whitaker v Whitaker (56 Misc 2d 625, affd 32 AD2d 595), have been dissolved by the addition of the new subdivision (b) to CPLR 302 (L 1974, ch 859, § 1, eff June 7, 1974). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Titone and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover moneys due and owing under a separation agreement, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered September 9, 1975, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In this action, moneys are allegedly due under a separation agreement which antedates the parties’ divorce. Respondent’s intestate, appellant’s former wife, obtained personal jurisdiction over appellant upon service of the summons and complaint on him. Jurisdiction lies under the authority of Kochenthal v Kochenthal (28 AD2d 117); any reservations to the contrary, as in the case of Whitaker v Whitaker (56 Misc 2d 625, affd 32 AD2d 595), have been dissolved by the addition of the new subdivision (b) to CPLR 302 (L 1974, ch 859, § 1, eff June 7, 1974). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Titone and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.2d 688, 386 N.Y.S.2d 639, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macgilvray-v-macgilvray-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack