Nicit v. Nicit

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nicit v. Nicit

210 A.D.2d 987, 621 N.Y.S.2d 1000

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 210 A.D.2d 987 (Nicit v. Nicit) 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

Nicit v. Nicit, 210 A.D.2d 987, 621 N.Y.S.2d 1000 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied respondent’s [988]*988motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition. The record supports the court’s determination that petitioner had acquired a bona fide domicile in Alabama at the time the divorce action in that State was commenced (see, Wilke v Wilke, 73 AD2d 915; cf., Manasseri v Manasseri, 121 AD2d 697). The evidence submitted by respondent is insufficient to support his allegation of lack of domicile (see, 48 NY Jur 2d, Domestic Relations, § 1474, at 415). The instant proceeding is not barred by res judicata (see; Nikrooz v Nikrooz, 167 AD2d 334, 335; 48 NY Jur 2d, Domestic Relations, § 1465, at 399). We reject respondent’s contention that petitioner is precluded from maintaining this proceeding on the ground that she obtained the foreign divorce judgment (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [2], [5]; Mattwell v Mattwell, 194 AD2d 715). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Seneca County, Harvey, J.—Equitable Distribution.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied respondent’s [988]*988motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition. The record supports the court’s determination that petitioner had acquired a bona fide domicile in Alabama at the time the divorce action in that State was commenced (see, Wilke v Wilke, 73 AD2d 915; cf., Manasseri v Manasseri, 121 AD2d 697). The evidence submitted by respondent is insufficient to support his allegation of lack of domicile (see, 48 NY Jur 2d, Domestic Relations, § 1474, at 415). The instant proceeding is not barred by res judicata (see; Nikrooz v Nikrooz, 167 AD2d 334, 335; 48 NY Jur 2d, Domestic Relations, § 1465, at 399). We reject respondent’s contention that petitioner is precluded from maintaining this proceeding on the ground that she obtained the foreign divorce judgment (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [2], [5]; Mattwell v Mattwell, 194 AD2d 715). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Seneca County, Harvey, J.—Equitable Distribution.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 987, 621 N.Y.S.2d 1000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nicit-v-nicit-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack