Legal Opinion

Kaplan v. Kaplan

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

Decided December 19, 1930Published

1Per curiam

The provisions of article 69 of the Civil Practice Act, entitled “ Action for a separation,” neither expressly nor inferentially preclude the maintenance of an action for separation by the duly authorized representative of an incompetent person. The situation is different from that in the case of an action for annulment sought to be brought by a sane spouse against an insane one under article 67 of the Civil Practice Act. In Hoadley v. Hoadley (244 N. Y. 424) it was held that, because the right to begin an action for annulment was expressly limited by statute to certain persons, and the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Ackerman v. . AckermanNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
  2. Hoadley v. HoadleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1927
  3. Dillion v. DillionCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1925
  4. Pollitzer v. PollitzerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1917

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

Powered by the Exa API