https://www.wnpr.org/post/new-haven-rabbi-daniel-greer-sentenced-sex-abuse-case
Friday, December 6, 2019
New Haven Rabbi Daniel Greer Sentenced In Sex Abuse Case
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
rasha gamur
ReplyDeleteThere are people that maintain that he is innocent.
ReplyDeleteUpdate on me:
ReplyDeleteSCOTUS 18-9390 Dec 09 2019 Rehearing DENIED.
SCOTUS 18-9390 Oct 07 2019 Petition DENIED.
SCOTUS 18-7160 Feb 25 2019 Petition DENIED
SCOTUS 18-7160 Apr 15 2019 Rehearing DENIED
I should’ve left well enough alone, after:
https://casetext.com/case/aranoff-v-aranoff-2
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aranoff v. Aranoff 226 A.D.2d 657 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996) • 642 N.Y.S.2d 49
Decided Apr 29, 1996 April 29, 1996
658 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.). *658 Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs. The wife, Susan Aranoff, and the husband, Gerald Aranoff, were married in 1969 and have six children. In July 1991, the wife commenced this separation action after the husband had left the United States to settle permanently in the State of Israel. In the separation action, the wife seeks, inter alia, support for the minor children. During the pendency of the separation action in New York, on February 17, 1993, a Rabbinical Court in the State of Israel issued a divorce decree. The husband contends that the Supreme Court erred in denying his motion to amend his answer so as to assert, as an affirmative defense, that the Israeli divorce had conclusively determined the issues now before the New York court. It is well settled that "[a]lthough not required to do so, the courts of this State generally will accord recognition to the judgments rendered in a foreign country under the doctrine of comity which is the equivalent of full faith and credit given by the courts to judgments of our sister States" ( Greschler v. Greschler, 51 N.Y.2d 368, 376). However, in order for a divorce decree of a foreign court to be accorded recognition in this State, the foreign court must have had in personam jurisdiction over both spouses ( see, Greschler v. Greschler, supra, at 376). Here, the record does not establish that the Rabbinical Court in Jerusalem had jurisdiction over the wife. Further, even if the divorce decree of the Jerusalem Rabbinical Court were entitled to full faith and credit under the doctrine of comity, New York courts would nevertheless retain jurisdiction over subsidiary issues such as child support ( see, Bennett v. Bennett, 103 A.D.2d 816, 817). As such, the Supreme Court was correct in not extending comity as to the child support issues and, accordingly, in denying the husband's motion to amend his answer. We find the husband's remaining contentions to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and McGinity, JJ., concur.