Velardo v. Velardo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Velardo v. Velardo

30 A.D.2d 542, 291 N.Y.S.2d 166, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4096

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

DecidedMay 6, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 542 (Velardo v. Velardo) 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

Velardo v. Velardo, 30 A.D.2d 542, 291 N.Y.S.2d 166, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4096 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action brought pursuant to subdivision (e) of section 140 of the Domestic Relations Law to annul a marriage, the plaintiff husband appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated December 18, 1967, which dismissed the complaint upon defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd. [a], par. 2), made at .the opening of the trial, on the ground that the court has not jurisdiction of the subject matter of the cause of action. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs, motion denied, and case remanded to the Supreme Court, Westchester -County, for disposition. No questions of fact were considered on this appeal. In our opinion there was a sufficient compliance with the residence requirements of subdivision 1 of section 230 of the Domestic Relations Law so as to give the court jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

In an action brought pursuant to subdivision (e) of section 140 of the Domestic Relations Law to annul a marriage, the plaintiff husband appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated December 18, 1967, which dismissed the complaint upon defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd. [a], par. 2), made at .the opening of the trial, on the ground that the court has not jurisdiction of the subject matter of the cause of action. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs, motion denied, and case remanded to the Supreme Court, Westchester -County, for disposition. No questions of fact were considered on this appeal. In our opinion there was a sufficient compliance with the residence requirements of subdivision 1 of section 230 of the Domestic Relations Law so as to give the court jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 542, 291 N.Y.S.2d 166, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4096, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/velardo-v-velardo-nyappdiv-1968.