Bauman v. Bauman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bauman v. Bauman

16 A.D.2d 937, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9248

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

DecidedJune 11, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.2d 937 (Bauman v. Bauman) 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

Bauman v. Bauman, 16 A.D.2d 937, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9248 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

In consolidated separation actions, by the husband on the ground of abandonment and by the wife on the ground of cruelty, abandonment and refusal to cohabit, the wife appeals from so much of two orders of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, both dated February 8, 1962, as, pendente lite: (1) awarded custody of their infant child Jeffrey, to the husband; (2) limited to $25 per week the allowance for the support of the infant Sara-Beth, a child of the wife’s prior marriage adopted by the husband; (3) denied the wife’s application for temporary alimony in each action; and (4) denied counsel fees in her action. Orders, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs (see Goldberg v. Goldberg, 4 A D 2d 884). No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In consolidated separation actions, by the husband on the ground of abandonment and by the wife on the ground of cruelty, abandonment and refusal to cohabit, the wife appeals from so much of two orders of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, both dated February 8, 1962, as, pendente lite: (1) awarded custody of their infant child Jeffrey, to the husband; (2) limited to $25 per week the allowance for the support of the infant Sara-Beth, a child of the wife’s prior marriage adopted by the husband; (3) denied the wife’s application for temporary alimony in each action; and (4) denied counsel fees in her action. Orders, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs (see Goldberg v. Goldberg, 4 A D 2d 884). No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.2d 937, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bauman-v-bauman-nyappdiv-1962.