Legal Opinion

Martens v. Martens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided May 31, 1940PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCohn, J.

Upon instituting this action for absolute divorce, plaintiff moved for alimony pendente lite and counsel fee. Defendant made a cross-motion pursuant to subdivision 5 of rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that there is an existing final judgment of divorce dissolving the marriage between the parties rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Special Term allowed plaintiff a counsel fee and denied defendant’s cross-motion, holding that there is an issue of fact concerning the validity of the foreign decree in this State because of the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Hilton v. GuyotSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  2. Haddock v. HaddockSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
  3. Gould v. . GouldNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
  4. Hubbard v. . HubbardNew York Court of Appeals · 1920
  5. Vose v. VoseNew York Court of Appeals · 1939

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Oettgen v. OettgenNew York Supreme Court · 1949
  2. In re the Estate of BrownNew York Surrogate's Court · 1986
  3. Karfiol v. KarfiolAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1950

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

Powered by the Exa API