Reda v. Reda

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reda v. Reda

41 A.D.2d 848, 342 N.Y.S.2d 634, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4721

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

DecidedApril 16, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.2d 848 (Reda v. Reda) 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

Reda v. Reda, 41 A.D.2d 848, 342 N.Y.S.2d 634, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4721 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

In consolidated actions for various relief, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated May 9, 1972 and made after a non-jury trial, which inter alla granted plaintiff a divorce and directed defendant to convey a one-half interest (fee) in certain real property to plaintiff. Judg[849]*849ment affirmed, .with costs. No opinion. Munder, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur; Hopkins, Acting P. J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and to dismiss the complaint, with the following memorandum: The salient issue in this case is whether a common-law marriage between two New York residents was established during their brief stay in Florida. In my opinion, the evidence on behalf of plaintiff, given the benefit of inferences fairly to be drawn in her favor, does not rise to the level which either New York law or Florida law demands for the proof of a valid common-law marriage (cf. Marsicano v. Marsicano, 79 Fla. 278; Matter of Price, 129 Fla. 467; McClish v. Rankin, 153 Fla. 324).

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

In consolidated actions for various relief, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated May 9, 1972 and made after a non-jury trial, which inter alla granted plaintiff a divorce and directed defendant to convey a one-half interest (fee) in certain real property to plaintiff. Judg[849]*849ment affirmed, .with costs. No opinion. Munder, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur; Hopkins, Acting P. J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and to dismiss the complaint, with the following memorandum: The salient issue in this case is whether a common-law marriage between two New York residents was established during their brief stay in Florida. In my opinion, the evidence on behalf of plaintiff, given the benefit of inferences fairly to be drawn in her favor, does not rise to the level which either New York law or Florida law demands for the proof of a valid common-law marriage (cf. Marsicano v. Marsicano, 79 Fla. 278; Matter of Price, 129 Fla. 467; McClish v. Rankin, 153 Fla. 324).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 848, 342 N.Y.S.2d 634, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reda-v-reda-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack