Legal Opinion

Borenstein v. Borenstein

New York Supreme Court

Decided April 2, 1934PublishedCited by 6 opinions

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

  1. Andrews v. AndrewsSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
  2. Bell v. BellSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
  3. Starbuck v. . StarbuckNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
  4. Gould v. . GouldNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
  5. Schneider v. SchneiderAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1931

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Standish v. StandishNew York Family Court · 1943
  2. Watters v. WattersAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1940
  3. Borenstein v. BorensteinNew York Supreme Court · 1937
  4. Borenstein v. BorensteinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1934
  5. S.B. v. W.A.New York Supreme Court · 2012

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API