Opinion
April 12, 1949.
As it does not appear on the face of the present complaint that the defendant and his first wife were before the Florida court which rendered the judgment of divorce, we do not pass upon the question as to whether the plaintiff may attack that judgment which is not open to attack by the defendant ( Sherrer v. Sherrer, 334 U.S. 343; Coe v. Coe, 334 U.S. 378). Whether the plaintiff's rights have been sufficiently invaded by the Florida judgment or New York's interest is to be deemed sufficiently aroused to grant annulment based upon the alleged invalidity of the Florida judgment should wait further proceedings in which the facts are fully disclosed. Order affirmed. Peck, P.J., Callahan and Van Voorhis, JJ., concur in this memorandum; Dore and Cohn, JJ., vote to affirm. [ 193 Misc. 189, 250.] [See post, p. 822.]