Aranoff v. Aranoff
| Decision Date | 29 April 1996 |
| Parties | Susan ARANOFF, Respondent, v. Gerald ARANOFF, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ian Anderson, New York City, for appellant.
Elizabeth Jackson Popkin, Great Neck, for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and SULLIVAN, PIZZUTO and McGINITY, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a separation action, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.), dated July 22, 1994, as denied his motion to amend his answer to add as an additional affirmative defense that the issues in the separation action had been conclusively determined in a divorce decree issued by a Rabbinical Court of the State of Israel, and (2) an order of the same court, dated August 29, 1994, as denied his motion to vacate a prior pendente lite order of the same court, dated February 1, 1994, which, inter alia, had enjoined the transfer of his pension.
ORDERED that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
The wife, Susan Aranoff, and the husband, Gerald Aranoff, were married in 1969 and have six children. In July 1991, the wife commenced this separation action after the husband had left the United States to settle permanently in the State of Israel. In the separation action, the wife seeks, inter alia, support for the minor children. During the pendency of the separation action in New York, on February 17, 1993, a Rabbinical Court in the State of Israel issued a divorce decree.
The husband contends that the Supreme Court erred in denying his motion to amend his answer so as to assert, as an affirmative defense, that the Israeli divorce had conclusively determined the issues now before the New York court. It is well settled that "[a]lthough not required to do so, the courts of this State generally will accord recognition to the judgments rendered in a foreign country under the doctrine of comity which is the equivalent of full faith and credit given by the courts to judgments of our sister States" (Greschler v. Greschler, 51 N.Y.2d 368, 376, 434 N.Y.S.2d 194, 414 N.E.2d 694). However, in order for a divorce decree of a foreign court to be accorded recognition in this state, the foreign court must have had in personam jurisdiction over both spouses (see, Greschler v. Greschler, supra, at 376, 434 N.Y.S.2d 194, 414 N.E.2d 694). Here, the record does not establish that the Rabbinical Court in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Steffens v. Steffens
...Misc.2d 703, 601 N.Y.S.2d 530; see also, Greschler v. Greschler, 51 N.Y.2d 368, 376, 434 N.Y.S.2d 194, 414 N.E.2d 694; Aranoff v. Aranoff, 226 A.D.2d 657, 642 N.Y.S.2d 49; DePena v. DePena, 31 A.D.2d 415, 298 N.Y.S.2d 188; Gorie v. Gorie, 26 A.D.2d 368, 274 N.Y.S.2d 985; Rosenstiel v. Rosen......
-
Kuznetsov v. Kuznetsova
...jurisdiction over both spouses ( see, Greschler v. Greschler,supra, at 376).' ( Vartsaba, 20 Misc.3d at *4,quoting Aranoff v. Aranoff, 226 A.D.2d 657, 658 [2 Dept., 1996] ). “Hence, comity should be extended to uphold the validity of a foreign divorce decree absent some showing of fraud in ......
-
Lorandos v. Karakatsiotis
...jurisdiction over the parties (see Daguerre, S.A.R.L. v. Rabizadeh, 112 A.D.3d 876, 877–878, 978 N.Y.S.2d 80 ; Aranoff v. Aranoff, 226 A.D.2d 657, 658, 642 N.Y.S.2d 49 ; Vazquez v. Sund Emba AB, 152 A.D.2d 389, 548 N.Y.S.2d 728 ). A New York court is permitted to scrutinize the basis of the......
-
M.H. v. M.G.
...696, 613 N.Y.S.2d 120, 635 N.E.2d 289; Feinberg v. Feinberg, 40 N.Y.2d 124, 386 N.Y.S.2d 77, 351 N.E.2d 725). In Aranoff v. Aranoff, 226 A.D.2d 657, 642 N.Y.S.2d 49, the Appellate Division Second Department held that a trial court was not required to recognize an Israeli divorce decree when......