Charles v. Charles

New York Supreme Court

Charles v. Charles

17 Misc. 2d 932, 191 N.Y.S.2d 382, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3632

DecidedMay 25, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 17 Misc. 2d 932 (Charles v. Charles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Charles v. Charles, 17 Misc. 2d 932, 191 N.Y.S.2d 382, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3632 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Benjamin Brenner, J.

Defendant husband’s motion to preclude is denied. The plaintiff wife’s affidavit and her pleadings indicate that she is relying on a course of conduct rather than any specific acts to prove her cause of action of cruel and inhuman treatment. She has sufficiently particularized such conduct in her bill of particulars. (Plucer v. Plucer, 8 A D 2d 713; Loeb v. Loeb, 240 App. Div. 912; Earle v. Earle, 79 App. Div. 631; Shanik v. Shanik, 207 Misc. 685; Kraus v. Kraus, 120 N. Y. S. 2d 845.)

Motion to strike plaintiff’s complaint and reply is denied on condition that she appear at Special Term, Part II on June 4, 1959 at 10:00 a.m., at which time she shall answer such unanswered or partially answered questions of the previous examination as the Justice sitting in Special Term, Part II shall direct; otherwise granted. In the event the defendant’s attorney does not appear the motion is denied unconditionally.

Settle order on notice.

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

Benjamin Brenner, J.

Defendant husband’s motion to preclude is denied. The plaintiff wife’s affidavit and her pleadings indicate that she is relying on a course of conduct rather than any specific acts to prove her cause of action of cruel and inhuman treatment. She has sufficiently particularized such conduct in her bill of particulars. (Plucer v. Plucer, 8 A D 2d 713; Loeb v. Loeb, 240 App. Div. 912; Earle v. Earle, 79 App. Div. 631; Shanik v. Shanik, 207 Misc. 685; Kraus v. Kraus, 120 N. Y. S. 2d 845.)

Motion to strike plaintiff’s complaint and reply is denied on condition that she appear at Special Term, Part II on June 4, 1959 at 10:00 a.m., at which time she shall answer such unanswered or partially answered questions of the previous examination as the Justice sitting in Special Term, Part II shall direct; otherwise granted. In the event the defendant’s attorney does not appear the motion is denied unconditionally.

Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 Misc. 2d 932, 191 N.Y.S.2d 382, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-v-charles-nysupct-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack