Waxstein v. Waxstein
| Decision Date | 09 May 1977 |
| Citation | 57 A.D.2d 863,394 N.Y.S.2d 253 |
| Parties | Lillian WAXSTEIN, Respondent, v. Arthur WAXSTEIN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Holtzman & Hoffman, New York City (Sidney Holtzman, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Baratta & Goldstein, New York City (Howard J. Goldstein, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MARTUSCELLO, J. P., and LATHAM, SHAPIRO and O'CONNOR, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action for divorce upon the ground that the parties have lived separate and apart pursuant to the terms of a separation agreement for one year, defendant appeals from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered September 14, 1976, which, inter alia, directed him to take whatever steps are necessary to secure a Jewish religious divorce.
Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Under the peculiar circumstances revealed by this record, the determination of Special Term was correct.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Masri v. Masri, 1557/2016.
...212, 212–213, 603 N.Y.S.2d 574 (2d Dept.1993) ; Waxstein v. Waxstein, 90 Misc.2d 784, 395 N.Y.S.2d 877 (Sup.Ct. Kings Co.1976), aff'd 57 A.D.2d 863, 394 N.Y.S.2d 253 (2d Dept.1977), appeal denied, 42 N.Y.2d 806, 398 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 367 N.E.2d 660.3 However, these cases do not address the Fir......
-
Kaplinsky v. Kaplinsky
...Friedenberg v. Friedenberg, 136 A.D.2d 593, 596, 523 N.Y.S.2d 578; Waxstein v. Waxstein, 90 Misc.2d 784, 395 N.Y.S.2d 877, affd 57 A.D.2d 863, 394 N.Y.S.2d 253; Matter of "Rubin" v. "Rubin", 75 Misc.2d 776, 348 N.Y.S.2d The issue as to whether Domestic Relations Law § 253 is unconstitutiona......
-
A.W. v. I.N.
...603 N.Y.S.2d 574 [2nd Dept.1993] ; Waxstein v. Waxstein, 90 Misc. 2d 784, 395 N.Y.S.2d 877[Sup.Ct. Kings Co.1976], aff'd 57 A.D.2d 863, 394 N.Y.S.2d 253 [2d Dept.1977] ). In this case, however, there is no agreement or contract between the parties regarding the GET. In fact, there exists a ......
-
Scholl v. Scholl, G-1609
...a GET from a "duly constituted rabbinical Court." Waxstein v. Waxstein, 90 Misc.2d 784, 395 N.Y.S.2d 877 (1976), aff'd, 57 A.D.2d 863, 394 N.Y.S.2d 253 (2d Dept.1977). The Court rejected Husband's argument that to enforce a contractual provision requiring a spouse to obtain a GET would be a......