§
In the Matter of M

13 Cited authorities

  1. American Surety Co. v. Conner

    251 N.Y. 1 (N.Y. 1929)   Cited 119 times
    In American Surety Co. v. Conner, 251 N.Y. 1, a leading case upon this question, it was held that under the uniform act a creditor need have no attachment or execution before bringing his bill.

  2. Sleicher v. Sleicher

    251 N.Y. 366 (N.Y. 1929)   Cited 84 times
    In Sleicher v. Sleicher (251 N.Y. 366), on the same facts, we held that the husband's obligations were revived after judicial annulment of the purported remarriage.

  3. Matter of Moncrief

    235 N.Y. 390 (N.Y. 1923)   Cited 40 times
    In Matter of Moncrief (235 N.Y. 390, 394, 396) the Court of Appeals, speaking through ANDREWS, J., held that a marriage obtained by fraud was voidable, but that when the decree of annulment was pronounced the marriage was deemed void ab initio.

  4. Cunningham v. Cunningham

    206 N.Y. 341 (N.Y. 1912)   Cited 51 times
    In Cunningham v. Cunningham, 206 N.Y. 341, the plaintiff resided in New York city and was under the age of eighteen years.

  5. "SMITH" v. "SMITH"

    179 Misc. 19 (N.Y. Dom. Rel. Ct. 1942)   Cited 2 times

    September 10, 1942. No appearances. PANKEN, J. Section 5 Dom. Rel. of the Domestic Relations Law, subdivision 3 thereof, places a marriage between an uncle and a niece in the category of an incestuous and void marriage. That which is made void by legislative act may not be validated by a court, except and unless the statute runs counter to and is violative of the Constitution of the State of New York or the Constitution of the United States. I must find as a matter of law that the Constitution of

  6. Miodownik v. Miodownik

    259 App. Div. 851 (N.Y. App. Div. 1940)   Cited 2 times

    April 19, 1940. Present — Lazansky, P.J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ. In an action brought for the annulment of a marriage on the ground of fraud, judgment in favor of plaintiff unanimously affirmed. with costs. The evidence is adequate to support the findings that defendant, by fraudulent representations of love and affection, induced the plaintiff to marry him when his true purpose was to secure entry into this country by securing a preferential visa as the husband of a United States

  7. Weinberg v. Weinberg

    255 A.D. 366 (N.Y. App. Div. 1938)   Cited 3 times

    November 16, 1938. Appeal from Supreme Court of Monroe County. Gano, Berger Solomon [ Casper L. Solomon of counsel], for the appellant. Charles Porter Maloney, for the respondent. Present — SEARS, P.J., LEWIS, CUNNINGHAM, TAYLOR and DOWLING, JJ. DOWLING, J. On August 31, 1920, Albert I. Weinberg was adjudged insane and was committed to Rochester State Hospital where he remained until June 4, 1924, when he was released on parole. On August 22, 1922, he was adjudicated an incompetent person and plaintiff

  8. Jones v. Brinsmade

    183 N.Y. 258 (N.Y. 1905)   Cited 37 times
    In Jones v. Brinsmade (supra) it was held that, pending the determination of an action for an annulment, brought by a wife against her husband, no alimony might be granted to the wife.

  9. Lederkremer v. Lederkremer

    173 Misc. 587 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1940)   Cited 1 times

    January 18, 1940. I. Gainsburg, for the plaintiff. Harold Green, for the defendant. CUFF, J. This action for an annulment was tried in Kings county. At the conclusion of the trial I dictated findings leaving open one question, to wit, the law of Poland with respect to grounds for annulling a marriage. That question has been briefed and an additional hearing had on that point. The court appreciates the untiring efforts of counsel. Those findings were: Defendant's representations that he loved plaintiff

  10. Matter of Incuria v. Incuria

    155 Misc. 755 (N.Y. Dom. Rel. Ct. 1935)   Cited 3 times

    June 8, 1935. Paul Windels [ Ida Cassasa, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel], for the petitioner. Francis Martocci, for the respondent. PANKEN, J. The facts, in so far as they are germane for a determination of the rights of the parties before me in this proceeding, are as follows: The petitioner and the respondent were married to each other in the city of Taranto, Italy, on or about the 13th day of November, 1927. At the time of the marriage the petitioner, the wife, was about forty-seven