Kelly v. Cnty. of Westchester, 283 A.D.2d 497 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
Kelly v. Cnty. of Westchester, 283 A.D.2d 497 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" In re the Estate of Catapano
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
Although abolished in New York, “a common-law marriage contracted in a sister State will be recognized as valid here if it is valid where contracted” (Matter of Mott v Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51 NY2d 289, 292 [1980]; see Matter of Landolfi, 283 AD2d 497, 498 [2001]; Tornese v Tornese, 233 AD2d 316 [1996]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re the Estate of Gernold
N.Y. Sur. Ct. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence low
“It is well settled that although abolished in New York, ‘a common-law marriage contracted in a sister State will be recognized here as valid if it is valid where contracted’ (Matter of Mott v Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51 NY2d 289, 292 [1980]; see also, Tornese v Tornese, 233 AD2d 316 [1996])” (Matter of Landolfi, 283 AD2d 497 , 498 [2001]), and the rule applies as well to a claimed common-law marriage created in another country (see, e.g., Matter of Jenkins, 133 Misc 2d 420 [1986], and Matter of Huyot, 169 Misc 2d 805 [1996], affd 245 AD2d 513 [1997]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Briana Kelly
v.
County of Westchester
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 14, 2001.
283 A.D.2d 497
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

—In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered June 28, 2000, which, inter alia, granted the petitioner’s application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the petitioner’s application, inter alia, for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) (see, Zachman v County of Suffolk, 275 AD2d 777; Owens v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 271 AD2d 514; Matter of Robinson v Westchester County Med. Ctr., 270 AD2d 275). Ritter, J. P., Altman, McGinity, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.