Gershon v. Back

Summary

The court held that New York's plenary action rule is substantive for choice-of-law purposes because it protects vested contractual rights under a separation agreement that survives and does not merge into a divorce judgment. Connecticut therefore applies New York substantive law but its own procedural law, and the Connecticut trial court had jurisdiction to consider the motion even though the plaintiff used the wrong procedural vehicle. The motion should have been denied rather than dismissed. The justices concurred, and no separate opinion contested the decision.