Borenstein v. Borenstein
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMcLaughlin, J.
Motion by plaintiff to strike out defenses. Plaintiff asserts that she obtained a binding judgment of divorce in California which awarded her certain moneys. She sues to reduce that money claim to a money judgment here. The defenses divide themselves into two classes. Defenses 1, 2 and 3 concern themselves with a Mexican divorce. The California decree was entered in January, 1934. The first three defenses say that in 1932 plaintiff and defendant participated in an action in Mexico, both appearing; that at the time plaintiff was a resident of Mexico. That a valid decree was entered in Mexico…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Andrews v. AndrewsSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Bell v. BellSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Starbuck v. . StarbuckNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
- Gould v. . GouldNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
- Schneider v. SchneiderAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1931
3Cited by6 opinions
- Standish v. StandishNew York Family Court · 1943
- Watters v. WattersAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1940
- Borenstein v. BorensteinNew York Supreme Court · 1937
- Borenstein v. BorensteinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1934
- S.B. v. W.A.New York Supreme Court · 2012
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.