Legal Opinion
Crane v. Crane
New York Supreme Court
Decided June 22, 1951PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtIrving L. Levey, J.
The first cause of action is insufficient in law. In that cause plaintiff seeks to attack the validity of a separation agreement which was ratified and approved by a Nevada decree of divorce which the plaintiff wife obtained. Where such a decree approves a property settlement it cannot be attacked in this court (Hoyt v. Hoyt, 265 App. Div. 223, motion for leave to appeal denied 290 N. Y. 931; Schacht v. Schacht, 295 N. Y. 439). The fact that the infants are made parties plaintiff does not cure this deficiency of the first cause (Farah v. Farah, 196 Misc. 460, affd. 276 App. Div. 1000; Clarke…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Finlay v. FinlayNew York Court of Appeals · 1925
- Schacht v. SchachtNew York Court of Appeals · 1946
- Hoyt v. HoytAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1942
- Farah v. FarahNew York Supreme Court · 1949
- Clarke v. ClarkeNew York Supreme Court · 1950
3Cited by5 opinions
- Horne v. HorneNew York Court of Appeals · 1968
- Eleanor Holm v. Morris Shilensky, Arthur Cantor and Charles Wohlstetter, as Executors of the Estate of Billy Rose, DeceasedCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1968
- Crane v. CraneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1952
- Kleinerman v. KleinermanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
- Beutel v. BeutelAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981