Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)

ESTHER KNOBEL, Respondent, v. PAUL KNOBEL, Appellant.

MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Notwithstanding defendant's claim that plaintiff's true motive in seeking a discontinuance was to bring another action in which equitable distribution would be available, it was not improper for the Appellate Division to have granted the discontinuance with prejudice to the institution of a subsequent matrimonial action based on any conduct which might have been the basis for an action prior to January 7, 1983 ( Tucker v Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 378, 384, n 2).

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, MEYER, SIMONS and KAYE concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

KNOBEL v. KNOBEL
(Sep 27, 1983)