Albers v. Albers

City of New York Municipal Court

Albers v. Albers

35 Misc. 847, 72 N.Y.S. 1093

DecidedJune 15, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 35 Misc. 847 (Albers v. Albers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Albers v. Albers, 35 Misc. 847, 72 N.Y.S. 1093 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Conlan, J.

The order requiring the plaintiff to give security for costs was.made upon affidavits submitted by both sides. The affidavits of the two defendants positively assert that, at the time of the commencement of the action, the plaintiff, their sister, resided with her father at 752 Putnam avenue, Brooklyn, and that she still so resided in March, 1901. The affidavit of the plaintiff as positively states that she removed from 752 Putnam avenue about September 20, 1900, where she had been residing with her father, and engaged a room at 101 Waverly Place, Manhattan, [848]*848and has since continuously resided there. If the latter were a real fact, it would not have been difficult to have corroborated the statement in her affidavit. She, however, failed to satisfy the justice sitting at Special Term of the truth of her statement, and there does not appear in the record any sufficient reason calling for an interference with the determination reached by the court below.

The order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.

Hascall and O’Dwyer, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Conlan, J.

The order requiring the plaintiff to give security for costs was.made upon affidavits submitted by both sides. The affidavits of the two defendants positively assert that, at the time of the commencement of the action, the plaintiff, their sister, resided with her father at 752 Putnam avenue, Brooklyn, and that she still so resided in March, 1901. The affidavit of the plaintiff as positively states that she removed from 752 Putnam avenue about September 20, 1900, where she had been residing with her father, and engaged a room at 101 Waverly Place, Manhattan, [848]*848and has since continuously resided there. If the latter were a real fact, it would not have been difficult to have corroborated the statement in her affidavit. She, however, failed to satisfy the justice sitting at Special Term of the truth of her statement, and there does not appear in the record any sufficient reason calling for an interference with the determination reached by the court below.

The order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.

Hascall and O’Dwyer, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 Misc. 847, 72 N.Y.S. 1093, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albers-v-albers-nynyccityct-1901.