From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cominos v. Cominos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 12, 1965
23 A.D.2d 769 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965)

Opinion

April 12, 1965


In an action for a declaratory judgment with respect to the parties' marital status and for a judicial separation, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered August 27, 1963 after a nonjury trial, upon the court's decision, which: (1) declared an alleged separation agreement to be null and void; (2) declared an alleged Mexican divorce to be null and void; (3) declared plaintiff to be the lawful wife of defendant; (4) granted her a judicial separation; and (5) directed that defendant pay permanent alimony to plaintiff of $85 per week. Judgment reversed on the law, without costs, and a new trial granted. No questions of fact have been considered. Prior to the new trial, plaintiff is directed to bring in as a party defendant the woman whom defendant claims to have married in Greece on January 27, 1963, and with whom he presently resides in New York. She is an indispensable party in this action; without her no effective judgment may be rendered ( Varrichio v. Varrichio, 269 App. Div. 678; Bard v. Bard, 16 A.D.2d 801; Williams v. Williams, 17 A.D.2d 958; Lauricella v. Lauricella, 13 Misc.2d 799). Ughetta, Acting P.J., Christ, Brennan, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Cominos v. Cominos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 12, 1965
23 A.D.2d 769 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965)
Case details for

Cominos v. Cominos

Case Details

Full title:CONSTANTINA COMINOS, Respondent, v. NICKOLAS COMINOS, Appellant

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

Date published: Apr 12, 1965

Citations

23 A.D.2d 769 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965)

Citing Cases

Zeitlan v. Zeitlan

y the validity of the Mexican divorce which he had procured; in the action in Mexico his former wife had not…

Sorrentino v. Mierzwa

In the circumstances, plaintiff is chargeable with gross laches ( Weiner v. Weiner, 13 A.D.2d 937; Guibord v.…