McFarland v. McFarland
Cases that cite this one
21 later published cases cite this decision.
- Label v. Label (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Elliott v. Elliott (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- McCaul v. McCaul (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- The People v. Emmanuel Diaz (N.Y. 2019)
- Etzion v. Etzion (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Cosh v. Cosh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Mahan v. Mahan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Kojovic v. Goldman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Kazimierski v. Weiss (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- Packer v. Packer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- Tal v. Tal (New York Supreme Court 1993)
- Cantamessa v. Cantamessa (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Washo v. Washo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Middleton v. Middleton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Rabbani v. Rabbani (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Krupski v. Krupski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Tarantino v. Tarantino (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- In re Holland (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- Altman v. Altman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- Nielsen v. Nielsen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- Golfinopoulos v. Golfinopoulos (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Alleging fraud and duress, plaintiff sought to invalidate the separation agreement between herself and her former husband, which had been incorporated but not merged in a bilateral Dominican Republic judgment of divorce. Specifically, she alleged that her former husband had understated the value of his partnership interest in a large investment firm, had failed to disclose an impending restructuring of the firm that would have increased the value of his interest and had threatened a custody fight when plaintiff failed to accede to his economic demands. Plaintiff did not, however, challenge the jurisdiction of the Dominican Republic court or dispute the validity of the divorce judgment itself. Finding no basis for departing from the general rule governing New York’s willingness to accord comity to foreign judgments, the trial court held that the prior Dominican Republic divorce judgment precluded further litigation concerning the validity of the incorporated separation agreement (see, Greschler v Greschler, 51 NY2d 368). Accordingly, the court dismissed the complaint in a judgment which the Appellate Division affirmed.
Even assuming that the allegations of fraud and duress in plaintiff’s complaint are technically sufficient to support a claim of rescission, those allegations do not rise to the level of gross inequity that might implicate New York’s public policy. Thus, there is no basis here for a contention that recognition of the Dominican Republic divorce judgment — or of the incorporated separation agreement — would "do violence to some strong public policy of this State” (Greschler v Greschler,
Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur; Chief Judge Wachtler taking no part.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.