Rosen v. Goldberg
| Decision Date | 12 December 1968 |
| Citation | 244 N.E.2d 869,23 N.Y.2d 791,297 N.Y.S.2d 298 |
| Parties | , 244 N.E.2d 869 Rosalie M. Goldberg ROSEN, Respondent, v. Stanley M. GOLDBERG, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, 28 A.D.2d 1051, 283 N.Y.S.2d 804.
Goldstein & Goldstein, Monticello ( David Farber, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.
Plaintiff brought action to recover $3,715.52 on separation agreement, for counsel fees, and to compel defendant to convey title to certain premises.
The separation agreement provided that it should not be merged in any subsequent divorce decree. The plaintiff obtained a Mexican divorce decree which incorporated the separation agreement. The defendant alleged that the separation agreement was void under Section 5--311 of the General Obligations Law, Consol.Laws, c. 24--A, providing that a husband and wife cannot contract to alter or dissolve marriage, and that agreement shall not be considered contract to alter or dissolve marriage unless it contains express provision requiring dissolution of marriage or provides for procurement of grounds for divorce.
The Supreme Court, Special Term, Sullivan County, T. Paul Kane, J., entered an order in favor of the plaintiff.
The Appellate Division entered an order November 28, 1967 which modified, on the law and the facts, and as modified, affirmed the order of the Special Term. The modification consisted of adding provision to the order that the complaint to be deemed amended to conform to the evidence so as to demand judgment for $12,856.05 and interest. The Appellate Division held that the separation agreement was not in violation of statute.
The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Order affirmed, with costs.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waxstein v. Waxstein
... ... should not be equated to or regarded as "an express provision requiring the dissolution of the marriage" (General Obligations Law § 5-311; Rosen v. Goldberg, 28 A.D.2d 1051, 283 N.Y.S.2d 804, affd. 23 N.Y.2d 791, 297 N.Y.S.2d 298, 244 N.E.2d 869), nor does the paragraph have a direct tendency ... ...
-
Collins v. Johnson
...procure a divorce within the four corners of the agreement or its amendment, the inquiry of the court must end (Rosen v. Goldberg, 23 N.Y.2d 791, 297 N.Y.S.2d 298, 244 N.E.2d 869; Gunter v. Gunter, 20 N.Y.2d 883, 285 N.Y.S.2d 855, 232 N.E.2d The now defunct Viles doctrine to one side, defen......
-
Alexandre v. Davis
... ... No possible prejudice can result to defendant from such relief. (CPLR 3025(b), (c); Rosen v. Goldberg, 28 A.D.2d 1051, 283 N.Y.S.2d 804, aff'd, 23 N.Y.2d 791, 297 N.Y.S.2d 298, 244 N.E.2d 869) ... Two sons were born of the ... ...
-
Eastman Kodak Co. v. GAF Corp.
... ... license agreements", a sum which includes (by permissible amendment (see CPLR 3025(c); Rosen v. Goldberg, 28 A.D.2d 1051, 283 N.Y.S.2d 804, affd. 23 N.Y.2d 791, 297 N.Y.S.2d 298, 244 N.E.2d 869)) royalties to the date of judgment. Therefore ... ...