Starr v. Kalfus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Starr v. Kalfus

255 A.D. 998, 8 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6215

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 255 A.D. 998 (Starr v. Kalfus) 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

Starr v. Kalfus, 255 A.D. 998, 8 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6215 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, in so far as it strikes out affirmative defenses from amended answer, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., Davis and Adel, JJ., concur; Hagarty, J., concurs for affirmance with the following memorandum: In the absence of a showing to the contrary by appellant, the judgment made in. the State of Nevada is final and is entitled to full faith and credit in this State to the end that it be considered as valid and binding here as it is considered in the State in which the judgment was made. (Sistare v. Sistare, 218 U. S. 1; Tiedemann v. Tiedemann, 172 App. Div. 819; affd., without opinion, 225 N. Y. 709; writ of error dismissed, 251 U. S. 536; Van Horn v. Van Horn, 196 App. Div. 472.) While the first defense, to the effect that plaintiff assumed the defendant’s obligation and maintained the child for a consideration and without expectation of reimbursement, might be deemed sufficient if the judgment had been made in this State (Swanton v. Curley, 273 N. Y. 325), the conclusiveness of the judgment under which the sums due have accrued must be Weighed in the light of the law of the State of Nevada and of the rulings and decisions of its courts, to which factor no reference is made in the answer. Taylor, J., concurs with Hagarty, J.

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

Order, in so far as it strikes out affirmative defenses from amended answer, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., Davis and Adel, JJ., concur; Hagarty, J., concurs for affirmance with the following memorandum: In the absence of a showing to the contrary by appellant, the judgment made in. the State of Nevada is final and is entitled to full faith and credit in this State to the end that it be considered as valid and binding here as it is considered in the State in which the judgment was made. (Sistare v. Sistare, 218 U. S. 1; Tiedemann v. Tiedemann, 172 App. Div. 819; affd., without opinion, 225 N. Y. 709; writ of error dismissed, 251 U. S. 536; Van Horn v. Van Horn, 196 App. Div. 472.) While the first defense, to the effect that plaintiff assumed the defendant’s obligation and maintained the child for a consideration and without expectation of reimbursement, might be deemed sufficient if the judgment had been made in this State (Swanton v. Curley, 273 N. Y. 325), the conclusiveness of the judgment under which the sums due have accrued must be Weighed in the light of the law of the State of Nevada and of the rulings and decisions of its courts, to which factor no reference is made in the answer. Taylor, J., concurs with Hagarty, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D. 998, 8 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/starr-v-kalfus-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack