Legal Opinion
Inkelas v. Inkelas
New York Supreme Court
Decided November 13, 1968PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtNathaniel T. Helman, J.
This motion by defendant to dismiss the complaint for want of jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 3211 is granted.
The defendant claims that he has not resided in this State for the past nine years, and is a resident of the State of California, the place where process was personally delivered to him. Concededly, defendant has no property in New York which has been attached or sequestered, nor has he appeared or answered.
The complaint alleges, in substance, that the parties are married; that defendant abandoned the plaintiff and their children; that plaintiff did not locate defendant until…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- De Brauwere v. . De BrauwereNew York Court of Appeals · 1911
- Laumeier v. . LaumeierNew York Court of Appeals · 1924
- Van Wagenberg v. Van WagenbergCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1966
- Poindexter v. WillisAppellate Court of Illinois · 1967
- Manufacturers Trust Co. v. GrayNew York Court of Appeals · 1938
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Harold Marsh v. William A. Kitchen and Ray T. Zakovich, and United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1973
- Baum v. BaumNew York Supreme Court · 1970
- Hafner v. Security Pacific National BankNew York Supreme Court · 1987
- Goldenhersh v. FebreyColorado Court of Appeals · 1985