Zindwer v. Ehrens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zindwer v. Ehrens

34 A.D.2d 906, 311 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4568

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

DecidedJune 9, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 34 A.D.2d 906 (Zindwer v. Ehrens) 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

Zindwer v. Ehrens, 34 A.D.2d 906, 311 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4568 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered December 5, 1969, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, and defendant-respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction denied. Plaintiff-appellant, who is a resident of this State and the assignee of defendant-respondent’s former wife, no longer resident here, has sued for payments due under a separation agreement executed here. This circumstance alone is sufficient to justify jurisdiction under CPLR 302 (subd. [a], par. 1). See full discussion in Kochenthal v. Kochenthal (28 A D 2d 117). B'eyond that, however, defendant has not established by a preponderance of credible evidence that he no longer resides in New York. Aside from the bare averment that he no longer lives here but in Florida, defendant has stated merely that he has been compelled, as a nonresident, to post security for costs “ in a small action ” he started in Civil Court, and that he has a two-year lease on a residence in Miami. As to the latter averment, so do many other persons in our highly mobile society lease residences in vacation resorts. As to the former, it is sufficient to point out that the instant action is the third such commenced by the same plaintiff assignee for the same relief, and that defendant, for his own reasons, has stated a preference for being sued in Florida. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Eager, McGivern, Markewich and Nunez, JJ.

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

Order entered December 5, 1969, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, and defendant-respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction denied. Plaintiff-appellant, who is a resident of this State and the assignee of defendant-respondent’s former wife, no longer resident here, has sued for payments due under a separation agreement executed here. This circumstance alone is sufficient to justify jurisdiction under CPLR 302 (subd. [a], par. 1). See full discussion in Kochenthal v. Kochenthal (28 A D 2d 117). B'eyond that, however, defendant has not established by a preponderance of credible evidence that he no longer resides in New York. Aside from the bare averment that he no longer lives here but in Florida, defendant has stated merely that he has been compelled, as a nonresident, to post security for costs “ in a small action ” he started in Civil Court, and that he has a two-year lease on a residence in Miami. As to the latter averment, so do many other persons in our highly mobile society lease residences in vacation resorts. As to the former, it is sufficient to point out that the instant action is the third such commenced by the same plaintiff assignee for the same relief, and that defendant, for his own reasons, has stated a preference for being sued in Florida. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Eager, McGivern, Markewich and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 906, 311 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zindwer-v-ehrens-nyappdiv-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack