Resslhuber v. Resslhuber

57 A.D.2d 552, 393 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11499
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 4, 1977
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 57 A.D.2d 552 (Resslhuber v. Resslhuber) 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
Resslhuber v. Resslhuber, 57 A.D.2d 552, 393 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11499 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Opinion

In an action for a money judgment for arrears due under a separation agreement incorporated, but not merged, into a Mexican decree of divorce, and for counsel fees, defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated June 30, 1976, which granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss his counterclaim and (2) a judgment of the same court, dated July 19, 1976, which, after a hearing, fixed arrears and awarded plaintiff a counsel fee. Order and judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs to cover both appeals. A party to a separation agreement which adequately provides for the support of the wife, and which does not violate our public policy, may not collaterally attack the validity of the agreement on the grounds of fraud and mistake after it has been incorporated in a valid, bilateral decree of divorce (Rehill v Rehill, 306 NY 126). This rule, which applies to divorce decrees of sister States, is also to be applied to bilateral divorce decrees, validly entered in foreign countries, which incorporate the prior separation agreement (Lappert v Lappert, 20 NY2d 364). The award of counsel fees was authorized by section 238 of the Domestic Relations Law (see Fabrikant v Fabrikant, 19 NY2d 154). The court’s award, after considering the income and expenses of the wife and her two children, was not an [553]*553abuse of discretion. Margett, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Titone and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Barrett v. Barrett
135 A.D.2d 1077 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Goldstein v. Goldstein
123 A.D.2d 739 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Bradley v. Earl
112 A.D.2d 262 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
MacFadden v. Martini
119 Misc. 2d 94 (NYC Family Court, 1983)
Carbone v. Alverio
89 A.D.2d 553 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Avery v. Avery
81 A.D.2d 849 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Feinberg v. Feinberg
96 Misc. 2d 443 (New York Supreme Court, 1978)
Cary v. Cary
94 Misc. 2d 257 (New York Supreme Court, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
57 A.D.2d 552, 393 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/resslhuber-v-resslhuber-nyappdiv-1977.