Silvers v. Silvers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Silvers v. Silvers

57 A.D.2d 948, 395 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12225

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

DecidedMay 31, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 57 A.D.2d 948 (Silvers v. Silvers) 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

Silvers v. Silvers, 57 A.D.2d 948, 395 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12225 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated October 7, 1976, which, after a hearing, denied his motion to dismiss the summons on the ground that the court did not have [949]*949jurisdiction of the parties or of the subject matter. Order affirmed, with costs. Defendant’s time to respond to the summons is extended until 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. Defendant failed to sustain his burden of showing, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that he had changed his dbmicile from New York to Florida (cf. Matter of Newcomb, 192 NY 238, 250; Matter of Marshall, 57 Misc 2d 419, 423). Accordingly, he remains a New York domiciliary, and the courts of this State have jurisdiction of the action by virtue of the provisions of subdivision 2 of section 230 of the Domestic Relations Law. Cohalan, J. P., Damiani, Rabin and Titone, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated October 7, 1976, which, after a hearing, denied his motion to dismiss the summons on the ground that the court did not have [949]*949jurisdiction of the parties or of the subject matter. Order affirmed, with costs. Defendant’s time to respond to the summons is extended until 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. Defendant failed to sustain his burden of showing, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that he had changed his dbmicile from New York to Florida (cf. Matter of Newcomb, 192 NY 238, 250; Matter of Marshall, 57 Misc 2d 419, 423). Accordingly, he remains a New York domiciliary, and the courts of this State have jurisdiction of the action by virtue of the provisions of subdivision 2 of section 230 of the Domestic Relations Law. Cohalan, J. P., Damiani, Rabin and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 948, 395 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silvers-v-silvers-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack