Hettich v. Hettich
New York Court of Appeals
1Per curiam
The third affirmative defense to the first cause of action cannot be a complete defense in view of the admitted failure to pay installments due under the 1932 agreement for the months of June, July and August, 1935. Moreover, the agreement alleged in said defense upon its face violates the public policy exemplified in section 51 of the Domestic Relations Law, in that it has a direct tendency toward dissolving the marriage between the parties and was by its terms entered into in order to facilitate “ their divorce action ” (Harris v. Harris, 287 N. Y. 444, 448; Schley v. Andrews, 225 N. Y.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Schley v. . AndrewsNew York Court of Appeals · 1919
- Harris v. HarrisNew York Court of Appeals · 1942
3Cited by6 opinions
- Hudson v. HudsonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1962
- Hettich v. HettichNew York Court of Appeals · 1952
- Harges v. HargesNew York Supreme Court · 1965
- Hettich v. HettichAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1951
- In re the Estate of FleischmannNew York Surrogate's Court · 1970
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.