 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SOVIET YORK PARTIES DIVORCE DECREE EMIGRATE COURT RATSUTSKY PUBLICATION APPELLANT UNITED STATES POLICY FORMER HUSBAND MARRIED JEWS POLICIES AFFIRM ILYA GOTLIB LAW COMITY VALIDITY LITIGATION GRESCHLER NY2D FEINBERG ASSERTION MERTZ SEPARATE BURDENS COERCION APPELLATE DIVISION |
IN THE MATTER OF ILYA GOTLIB v. LIA RATSUTSKY
LIA RATSUTSKY v. ILYA GOTLIB,
83 N.Y.2d 696, 635 N.E.2d 289, 613 N.Y.S.2d 120 (1994).
June 14, 1994
1 No. 108 (1994 NY Int. 102)
Decided June 14, 1994
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
BELLACOSA, J.:
At the heart of this appeal surrounding a multipronged dispute between
Lia Ratsutsky and Ilya Gotlib is her suit for divorce from him under
New York law. Since she concedes that she was already divorced from
him in 1977 in Odessa, The Ukraine, under then-Soviet law, she faces a
formidable obstacle to obtaining such relief under comity principles
respected and applied under New York jurisprudence.
The parties were married in the USSR in 1976 and divorced within a
year. The wife initiated that divorce, appeared in court with her
husband, and secured the sought-after bilateral divorce decree. She
never renounced or disclaimed the validity and effect of that divorce
until she commenced this New York litigation, some 14 years later. She
and her former husband did eventually emigrate separately, as did her
extended family, in the late 1970's. During part of the 1980's, she
and her former husband lived together in Brooklyn, and while they did
not marry or re-marry, a daughter was born to them in 1980. The
parties filed joint tax returns for the periods when they were
together. Eventually, they went their separate ways and this
litigation ensued. Though the litigation involves visitation and
support issues, only the divorce aspect is before this Court on this
appeal.
Appellant Ratsutsky claims that the Soviet divorce was a "sham" and
was sought "pro forma" to ease the parties' respective efforts and
those of the Ratsutsky family to emigrate as Jewish-Soviet citizens to
the United States. Her central contention is that the divorce was
needed because married Jews were otherwise "barred" or "delayed" or
burdened with "Soviet red tape" from emigrating.
Supreme Court ruled that there were questions of fact surrounding the
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
