From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fink v. Goldblatt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 11, 1962
18 A.D.2d 629 (N.Y. App. Div. 1962)

Opinion

December 11, 1962


Order, entered on May 9, 1962, so far as appealed from, denying defendant-appellant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion granted, with $10 costs. The Mexican decree approves and incorporates the separation agreement and orders the parties to comply with it. As the validity of the decree is in no wise questioned, its consequent recognition by our courts (see Gould v. Gould, 235 N.Y. 14, 28, 29) precludes the impairment of its mandate which the requested annulment of the agreement would entail ( Rehill v. Rehill, 306 N.Y. 126; Schacht v. Schacht, 295 N.Y. 439; Calderon v. Calderon, 275 App. Div. 251; Hoyt, v. Hoyt, 265 App. Div. 223).

Concur — Botein, P.J., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ. [ 33 Misc.2d 454.]


Summaries of

Fink v. Goldblatt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 11, 1962
18 A.D.2d 629 (N.Y. App. Div. 1962)
Case details for

Fink v. Goldblatt

Case Details

Full title:MARTIN S. FINK, Respondent, v. MURIEL S. GOLDBLATT, Appellant, et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 11, 1962

Citations

18 A.D.2d 629 (N.Y. App. Div. 1962)
235 N.Y.S.2d 56

Citing Cases

Harges v. Harges

The motion to dismiss the defenses is predicated on the public policy enunciated by section 5-311 Gen. Oblig.…

Fitzgerald v. Morgenstern

Since the Mexican decree, incorporating and approving the agreement is not here questioned and could not be (…