Basch v. Basch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Basch v. Basch

278 A.D. 734, 103 N.Y.S.2d 60, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4516

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 14, 1951

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 278 A.D. 734 (Basch v. Basch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Basch v. Basch, 278 A.D. 734, 103 N.Y.S.2d 60, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4516 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County. The action is for a divorce and the order directs the payment to the plaintiff of money for the support of the children of the marriage. The appeal, however, is from that portion of the order only which, during the pendency of the action, directs the husband to give plaintiff the use of a house owned by the parties as tenants by the entirety and which orders that the husband remove himself from such premises. The general power to direct this disposition of real property unconditionally as part of a judgment in a matrimonial action has been denied {Cox V. Cox, 266 App. Div. 38) and even as a temporary arrangement it is open to doubt; but here the affidavit of the husband’s lawyer on the motion seemed to offer such a disposition as one of the solutions available to the Special Term in such form and in such language that the husband is estopped on this question. Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and printing disbursements. Present — Foster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Bergan and Coon, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County. The action is for a divorce and the order directs the payment to the plaintiff of money for the support of the children of the marriage. The appeal, however, is from that portion of the order only which, during the pendency of the action, directs the husband to give plaintiff the use of a house owned by the parties as tenants by the entirety and which orders that the husband remove himself from such premises. The general power to direct this disposition of real property unconditionally as part of a judgment in a matrimonial action has been denied {Cox V. Cox, 266 App. Div. 38) and even as a temporary arrangement it is open to doubt; but here the affidavit of the husband’s lawyer on the motion seemed to offer such a disposition as one of the solutions available to the Special Term in such form and in such language that the husband is estopped on this question. Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and printing disbursements. Present — Foster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Bergan and Coon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D. 734, 103 N.Y.S.2d 60, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/basch-v-basch-nyappdiv-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack