Psaroudis v. Psaroudis

New York Court of Appeals

Psaroudis v. Psaroudis

261 N.E.2d 108, 27 N.Y.2d 527, 312 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1970 N.Y. LEXIS 1307

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 14, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 261 N.E.2d 108 (Psaroudis v. Psaroudis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Psaroudis v. Psaroudis, 261 N.E.2d 108, 27 N.Y.2d 527, 312 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1970 N.Y. LEXIS 1307 (N.Y. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. Although the existence of the plaintiff husband’s prior marriage, continuing at the time of his marriage to defendant wife, is admitted in his pleading in this action, the prior adjudication in the wife’s action for a separation is a determination directly binding on these parties that the present marriage is legally valid (Statter v. Statter, 2 N Y 2d 668). The determination by the prior judgment would serve to defeat this kind of action for tort based on fraud. The husband did not plead the res judicata effect of the prior judgment in defense of the defendant wife’s counterclaims for damages for fraud based on the legal disability of the husband to contract this marriage, but he did plead the payment by him and the acceptance by the wife of alimony and both the trial court and the Appellate Division found there had been a decree of separation between the parties and the payment of alimony. On such a record the conclusion of the Appellate Division that defendant had not sustained damages from fraud when she entered into this presently valid marriage seems justified. Moreover, the Appellate Division is right in holding that defendant’s counterclaims are barred by the Statute of Limitations.

The order should be affirmed, without costs.

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Breitel, Jasen and Gibson concur.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

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

Memorandum. Although the existence of the plaintiff husband’s prior marriage, continuing at the time of his marriage to defendant wife, is admitted in his pleading in this action, the prior adjudication in the wife’s action for a separation is a determination directly binding on these parties that the present marriage is legally valid (Statter v. Statter, 2 N Y 2d 668). The determination by the prior judgment would serve to defeat this kind of action for tort based on fraud. The husband did not plead the res judicata effect of the prior judgment in defense of the defendant wife’s counterclaims for damages for fraud based on the legal disability of the husband to contract this marriage, but he did plead the payment by him and the acceptance by the wife of alimony and both the trial court and the Appellate Division found there had been a decree of separation between the parties and the payment of alimony. On such a record the conclusion of the Appellate Division that defendant had not sustained damages from fraud when she entered into this presently valid marriage seems justified. Moreover, the Appellate Division is right in holding that defendant’s counterclaims are barred by the Statute of Limitations.

The order should be affirmed, without costs.

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Breitel, Jasen and Gibson concur.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 N.E.2d 108, 27 N.Y.2d 527, 312 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1970 N.Y. LEXIS 1307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/psaroudis-v-psaroudis-ny-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack