Legal Opinion

Satenstein v. Satenstein

New York Supreme Court

Decided June 14, 1963PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBirdie Amsterdam, J.

Defendant husband moves to dismiss the complaint for legal insufficiency, pursuant to subdivision 4 of rule 106 of the Buies of Civil Practice. It is defendant’s position that neither of the two causes of action, alleged by plaintiff wife, are sufficient to constitute a cause of action for rescission of the separation agreement between the parties, which is the subject of his lawsuit.

The separation agreement sought by plaintiff to be rescinded is dated June 1, 1954 and was later amended, the final amendment having been executed November 16, 1962. Plaintiff’s causes of action are predicated…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Galusha v. . GalushaNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
  2. Goldman v. GoldmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1940
  3. Galusha v. . GalushaNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
  4. Schmelzel v. SchmelzelNew York Court of Appeals · 1941
  5. McCall Co. v. . WrightNew York Court of Appeals · 1910

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Dorman v. CohenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
  2. Riemer v. RiemerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1969
  3. Satenstein v. SatensteinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1964
  4. Satenstein v. SatensteinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1965

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

Powered by the Exa API