¶1Order, entered on May 9, 1962, so far as appealed from, denying defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion granted, with $10 costs. The Mexican decree approves and incorporates the separation agreement and orders the parties to comply with it. As the validity of the decree is in no wise questioned, its consequent recognition by our courts (see Gould v. Gould, 235 N. Y. 14, 28, 29) precludes the impairment of its mandate which the requested annulment of the agreement would entail (Rehill v. Rehill, 306 N. Y. 126; Schacht v. Schacht, 295 N. Y. 439; Calderon v. Calderon, 275 App. Div. 251; Hoyt v. Hoyt, 265 App. Div. 223). Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ. [33 Misc 2d 454.]
18 A.D.2d 629
Fink v. Goldblatt
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 11, 1962
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1962-12-11
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently September 2015
Relies on Gould v. . Gould · Schacht v. Schacht · Rehill v. Rehill
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1962-12-11
View the full empirical analysis of this case →