Legal Opinion
Peterson v. Goldberg
New York Supreme Court
Decided January 16, 1990PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Alfred J. Weiner, J.
Motion for reargument of this court’s orders dated March 16, 1989 is granted, and upon reargument, the court adheres to its original decisions, as it is this court’s opinion that the action has not abated.
The basis of this motion is defendant’s contention that this action abated upon the death of the plaintiff’s intestate.
Plaintiff’s intestate commenced this action for divorce, maintenance, equitable distribution and other relief. Subsequently, defendant husband obtained an ex parte Florida judgment of divorce in 1987, and moved for summary judgment…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Braunstein v. BraunsteinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- Pastuszek v. PastuszekSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Sperber v. SchwartzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
- Anello v. AnelloAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1964
- Drumheller v. MarcelloSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- United States v. Ronald N. Totaro, Adrienne Totaro, Interested Party-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2003
- Peterson v. GoldbergAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Goldberg v. Hilsen (In Re Hilsen)District Court, S.D. New York · 1990
- Thorson v. ThorsonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1996
- Albrecht v. AlbrechtNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2014
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.