Legal Opinion

Height v. Height

New York Supreme Court

Decided April 20, 1959Published

1Opinion of the CourtLohis L. Friedman, J.

Defendant moves, nnder subdivision 4 of rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The basis for the relief sought is that the alleged antenuptial agreements, set forth at length in the complaint, are against public policy, thus void, and therefore legally insufficient to entitle plaintiff to the prayer for relief contained in his complaint.

The action is brought for annulment of marriage. The complaint makes certain allegations which must be accepted as true on a motion of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Mirizio v. MirizioNew York Court of Appeals · 1926
  2. Schwartz v. HeffernanNew York Court of Appeals · 1952
  3. Kershner v. KershnerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1935
  4. Kershner v. KershnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1936
  5. Lopez v. LopezNew York Supreme Court · 1957

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

Powered by the Exa API