Aron v. Aron

New York Court of Appeals

Aron v. Aron

20 N.E.2d 775, 280 N.Y. 328, 1939 N.Y. LEXIS 1320

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 11, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 20 N.E.2d 775 (Aron v. Aron) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aron v. Aron, 20 N.E.2d 775, 280 N.Y. 328, 1939 N.Y. LEXIS 1320 (N.Y. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It appears conclusively from the recitals of the resettled order that the testimony taken before the *330 referee was not before the justice at Special Term. Where confirmation is opposed of the report of a referee rendered in a proceeding to punish for contempt the court is not justified in confirming the report and making an order to punish for contempt without consideration of the testimony-in some form or agreement by the parties as to its substance sufficient to permit the court to pass upon a challenge made to the sufficiency of the evidence. (Cf. rule 170 of the Rules of Civil Practice.)

The orders should be reversed, without costs, and the matter remitted to the Special Term. The certified question is answered in the negative.

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran. Finch and Rippey, JJ., concur.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Per Curiam.

It appears conclusively from the recitals of the resettled order that the testimony taken before the *330 referee was not before the justice at Special Term. Where confirmation is opposed of the report of a referee rendered in a proceeding to punish for contempt the court is not justified in confirming the report and making an order to punish for contempt without consideration of the testimony-in some form or agreement by the parties as to its substance sufficient to permit the court to pass upon a challenge made to the sufficiency of the evidence. (Cf. rule 170 of the Rules of Civil Practice.)

The orders should be reversed, without costs, and the matter remitted to the Special Term. The certified question is answered in the negative.

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran. Finch and Rippey, JJ., concur.

Ordered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 N.E.2d 775, 280 N.Y. 328, 1939 N.Y. LEXIS 1320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aron-v-aron-ny-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack