McCann v. McCann

New York Supreme Court

McCann v. McCann

30 Misc. 2d 472, 219 N.Y.S.2d 278, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2439

DecidedAugust 30, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 30 Misc. 2d 472 (McCann v. McCann) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McCann v. McCann, 30 Misc. 2d 472, 219 N.Y.S.2d 278, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2439 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Mario Pittoni, J.

Motion for a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from prosecuting in the “ First Civil Court, of Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico ” an action for divorce.

The parties are residents of Nassau County. On or about August 12, 1961 the plaintiff was served with a complaint in an action for divorce, to be prosecuted in the aforesaid Mexican court. She has not appeared in that action. The second cause of action of her complaint is for an injunction staying the defendant from prosecuting the action in Mexico.

Since the courts of this State regard as invalid a divorce obtained in Mexico under the circumstances outlined in the complaint, a cause of action for an injunction will not lie (Rosenbaum v. Rosenbaum, 309 N. Y. 371; Arpels v. Arpels, 8 N Y 2d 339, 341-344). Therefore, the motion must be and is denied.

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

Mario Pittoni, J.

Motion for a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from prosecuting in the “ First Civil Court, of Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico ” an action for divorce.

The parties are residents of Nassau County. On or about August 12, 1961 the plaintiff was served with a complaint in an action for divorce, to be prosecuted in the aforesaid Mexican court. She has not appeared in that action. The second cause of action of her complaint is for an injunction staying the defendant from prosecuting the action in Mexico.

Since the courts of this State regard as invalid a divorce obtained in Mexico under the circumstances outlined in the complaint, a cause of action for an injunction will not lie (Rosenbaum v. Rosenbaum, 309 N. Y. 371; Arpels v. Arpels, 8 N Y 2d 339, 341-344). Therefore, the motion must be and is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 Misc. 2d 472, 219 N.Y.S.2d 278, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccann-v-mccann-nysupct-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack