Opinion
March 31, 1966
Order of Family Court entered October 13, 1965, denying appellant's motion to examine respondent and her prior husband, Fereidoun Ghahremani, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and the motion is granted to the extent of directing an examination of respondent as to all facts concerning her domicile and residence relevant to a determination of the validity of the Alabama decree divorcing her and said Ghahremani, with leave to appellant to renew his motion to examine Ghahremani as hereinafter provided. Unless respondent's marriage to Ghahremani was effectively dissolved by the divorce decree she obtained in Alabama, her subsequent marriage to appellant was invalid and he has no duty of support ( Matter of Carter v. Carter, 19 A.D.2d 513; Fishberg v. Fishberg, 16 A.D.2d 629; Wilkov v. Wilkov, 13 A.D.2d 471). Appellant has sworn that respondent informed him that neither she nor Ghahremani ever resided in Alabama, but that "at the time of the divorce, they resided in New York, and that she had gone to Alabama, remained one or two days solely for the purpose of obtaining the divorce. That her husband had consented and appeared by an attorney in Alabama to facilitate the proceeding." This showing, if established, would render the divorce decree vulnerable in Alabama and therefore here ( Weisner v. Weisner, 18 A.D.2d 997, 23 A.D.2d 632; Magowan v. Magowan, 45 Misc.2d 972, affd. 24 A.D.2d 840). The facts pertaining to respondent's residence in Alabama are particularly within her knowledge and it is appropriate that her deposition regarding them be taken ( Satenstein v. Satenstein, 24 A.D.2d 422). If thereafter appellant can show that an examination of Ghahremani is also needed, application therefor may be renewed. Settle order on notice fixing date for examination to proceed.
Concur — Botein, P.J., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.