Borenstein v. Borenstein

CourtNew York Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM.
Citation3 N.E.2d 844,272 N.Y. 407
PartiesJeanette BORENSTEIN, Respondent, v. David BORENSTEIN, Appellant.
Decision Date08 July 1936

272 N.Y. 407
3 N.E.2d 844

Jeanette BORENSTEIN, Respondent,
v.
David BORENSTEIN, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

July 8, 1936.


Appeal, by permission, from a judgment, entered December 14, 1934, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department which dismissed upon the law and not in the exercise of discretion an appeal from a judgment entered upon an order of Special Term granting a motion by plaintiff for summary judgment, striking out the answer as sham, and directing the entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $27,250, with interest thereon from January 15, 1934. Defendant also appealed from an order of the same Appellate Division (242 App.Div. 761, 274 N.Y.S. 1011), entered October 16, 1934, which unanimously affirmed an order of Special Term, granting plaintiff's motion to strike out the affirmative defenses contained in defendant's answer without leave to plead over. See 151 Misc. 160, 270 N.Y.S. 688. For a first cause of action the complaint alleged that until the rendition of the judgment of divorce hereinafter referred to, the parties were husband and wife; that prior to January 15, 1934, plaintiff commenced an action for divorce against defendant in the superior court of the state of California, duly empowered by the laws of that state to try and determine causes of action for absolute divorce; that process was duly served upon the defendant in person within such state; that in such action both plaintiff and defendant duly appeared by attorneys, and that plaintiff in person and defendant by attorney duly appeared upon the trial thereof; that on or about January 15, 1934, plaintiff duly recovered in such action a judgment of divorce against defendant, giving her custody of their minor children, and awarding her alimony in the sum of $25,000; that thereafter such judgment was duly served upon the attorney appearing on behalf of the defendant; that defendant has failed to pay said sum of $25,000; and that there is now due and payable to plaintiff from defendant such sum with interest thereon from January 15, 1934. The second cause of action was to recover the sum of $2,000 awarded by such judgment as attorney's fees, and the third cause of action was to recover the sum of $250 which said judgment directed the defendant to pay, under stated circumstances, to the plaintiff monthly for the support of their minor children with interest on both such sums from January 15, 1934....

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Rosenbluth v. Rosenbluth
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • May 16, 1962
    ...Pearson v. Pearson, (1920) 230 N.Y. 141, 129 N.E. 349, also involving a [34 Misc.2d 293] Nevada divorce; Borenstein v. Borenstein, (1936) 272 N.Y . 407, 3 N.E.2d 844, involving a California divorce; Glaser v. Glaser, (1938) 276 N.Y. 296, 12 N.E.2d 305, involving a Nevada divorce; Hess v. He......
  • Guar. Trust Co. of New York v. State, (Claim No. 27969).
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • June 2, 1949
    ...65, Ann.Cas.1917D, 157;Silverstein v. Standard Accident Ins. Co. of Detroit, Mich., 221 N.Y. 332, 117 N.E. 307; Borenstein v. Borenstein, 272 N.Y. 407, 3 N.E.2d 844; Civil Practice Act, s 588, subd. 1, cl. (b). Accordingly, we heretofore denied a motion by the claimant for dismissal of the ......
2 cases
  • Rosenbluth v. Rosenbluth
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • May 16, 1962
    ...Pearson v. Pearson, (1920) 230 N.Y. 141, 129 N.E. 349, also involving a [34 Misc.2d 293] Nevada divorce; Borenstein v. Borenstein, (1936) 272 N.Y . 407, 3 N.E.2d 844, involving a California divorce; Glaser v. Glaser, (1938) 276 N.Y. 296, 12 N.E.2d 305, involving a Nevada divorce; Hess v. He......
  • Guar. Trust Co. of New York v. State, (Claim No. 27969).
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • June 2, 1949
    ...65, Ann.Cas.1917D, 157;Silverstein v. Standard Accident Ins. Co. of Detroit, Mich., 221 N.Y. 332, 117 N.E. 307; Borenstein v. Borenstein, 272 N.Y. 407, 3 N.E.2d 844; Civil Practice Act, s 588, subd. 1, cl. (b). Accordingly, we heretofore denied a motion by the claimant for dismissal of the ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT