## Facts

- The wife previously married Kaufman; both were New York residents.
- In 1954, Kaufman obtained a divorce in Juarez, Mexico after spending about one day there, registering as a resident, and personally appearing to file the petition.
- The wife did not travel to Mexico but appeared in the Mexican proceeding through an attorney, who admitted Kaufman’s allegations.
- A Mexican court granted a divorce decree the same day; the decree was valid under Mexican law.
- In 1956, the wife married the plaintiff in New York.
- The plaintiff later sued in New York to annul the marriage, arguing the Mexican divorce was invalid because neither spouse was domiciled in Mexico, leaving the wife still married to Kaufman.

## Issues

1. Whether New York should recognize a bilateral Mexican divorce when one spouse personally appears in Mexico and the other appears through counsel, despite the absence of bona fide Mexican domicile.
2. Whether recognizing such a decree violates New York public policy so as to render the wife incompetent to enter a subsequent New York marriage.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s dismissal of the annulment complaint.
- The court held that New York would recognize the bilateral Mexican divorce for New York purposes.
- Because the prior divorce was recognized, the wife was free to marry, and the plaintiff was not entitled to an annulment.
- The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed an appeal for want of a substantial federal question.

## Legal Principles

- New York may recognize a foreign nation divorce decree that is bilateral in character, including where one spouse is physically present and submits to the foreign court and the other spouse appears through counsel.
- Physical presence and voluntary submission to a foreign tribunal can support recognition even if the foreign jurisdiction’s “residence” standard does not satisfy New York’s domicile concept.
- New York public policy does not automatically bar recognition of a foreign divorce merely because it was obtained quickly or by consent; bilateral participation and actual submission to the foreign court are central considerations.
- A foreign divorce obtained without meaningful submission to the foreign jurisdiction (e.g., purely in absentia or by correspondence) is treated differently from a decree supported by personal appearance and participation.

## Conclusion

The court recognized a bilateral Mexican divorce obtained through one spouse’s personal appearance in Mexico and the other spouse’s appearance by counsel, despite lack of domicile, and therefore rejected an annulment claim based on alleged invalidity of the prior divorce.


Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel, 16 N.Y.2d 64 (N.Y. 1965)