Koeppel v. Koeppel

Decision Date15 April 1957
Citation161 N.Y.S.2d 694,3 A.D.2d 853
PartiesMaureen KOEPPEL, appellant, v. William M. KOEPPEL, respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Aaron E. Nowack, New York City, for appellant.

Henry R. Eisenberg, Ridgewood, for respondent.



In an action for specific performance, the appeal is from a judgment dismissing the complaint, entered after trial before an Official Referee, to whom the action had been referred to hear and determine.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellant and respondent were formerly husband and wife and both are of the Jewish faith. During pendency of an action brought by appellant to annul their marriage, the parties entered into a contract, which provided that 'Upon the successful prosecution of the Wife's action for the dissolution of her marriage, the Husband and Wife covenant and agree that he and she will, whenever called upon, and if and whenever the same shall become necessary, appear before a Rabbi or Rabbinate selected and designated by whomsoever of the parties who shall first demand the same, and execute any and all papers and documents required by and necessary to effectuate a dissolution of their marriage in accordance with the ecclesiastical laws of the Faith and Church of said parties.' Thereafter, a decree of annulment was entered in that action, in appellant's favor, and appellant called upon respondent to perform his agreement by appearing before a rabbi or rabbinate, and executing the requisite papers. Upon respondent's refusal to comply with appellant's demand, this action was commenced to compel such performance. We are in accord with the determination by the Official Referee that, on the record presented, appellant is not entitled to relief. The evidence discloses that appellant has been remarried at a ceremony at which a duly ordained rabbi of her own faith officiated, and no question is raised as to the validity of that marriage under the laws of this State, nor does it appear that its validity has been otherwise questioned to appellant's detriment, or that there are children of the second marriage. Appellant's right to require respondent to participate in an ecclesiastical divorce was not absolute, but was by the terms of her own agreement only to be exercised when the same should become necessary. We are unable to determine from the terms of the contract and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Waxstein v. Waxstein
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • July 28, 1976
    ...of an agreement to obtain a "Get" has been recognized in this state (Koeppel v. Koeppel, Sup., 138 N.Y.S.2d 366, 373, affd. 3 A.D.2d 853, 161 N.Y.S.2d 694 (2d Dept.); Margulies v. Margulies, 42 A.D.2d 517, 344 N.Y.S.2d 482, appeal dismissed 33 N.Y.2d 894, 352 N.Y.S.2d 447, 307 N.E.2d 562; R......
  • Avitzur v. Avitzur
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 8, 1982
    ...863, 394 N.Y.S.2d 253 Matter of "Rubin" v. "Rubin", 75 Misc.2d 776, 348 N.Y.S.2d 61 Koeppel v. Koeppel, 138 N.Y.S.2d 366, affd. 3 A.D.2d 853, 161 N.Y.S.2d 694 ). Only the unreported case of Stern v. Stern (Supreme Ct., Kings County, August 8, 1979, HELD, J.) has granted specific performance......
  • Pal v. Pal
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 17, 1974
    ...per se but because its particular terms were too indefinite to support a judgment for specific performance (Koeppel v. Koeppel, 3 A.D.2d 853, 161 N.Y.S.2d 694). Moreover, as heretofore noted, plaintiff did not challenge, either at Special Term or on this appeal, Special Term's power to sele......

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