Gardner v. Gardner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gardner v. Gardner

49 A.D.2d 903, 374 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11133

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

DecidedOctober 14, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 49 A.D.2d 903 (Gardner v. Gardner) 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

Gardner v. Gardner, 49 A.D.2d 903, 374 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11133 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for divorce, the defendant husband appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated June 11,1974, which denied his motion to amend his answer, and (2) a judgment of the same court, dated September 30, 1974, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff a divorce. Order and judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs to cover both appeals. On the record on these appeals, it was a proper exercise of discretion for the Trial Justice to deny defendant leave to serve an amended answer with a counterclaim for divorce on the eve of trial, to limit cross-examination of plaintiff and to exclude testimony on defendant’s behalf with respect to the proposed counterclaim. Further, the trial court’s findings with respect to 12 of the 14 charges of cruelty are amply supported by the evidence. The awards for alimony and child support and the direction that the marital premises be sold and the net proceeds divided equally between the parties were also within proper exercise of the trial court’s discretion under the circumstances. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Margett and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for divorce, the defendant husband appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated June 11,1974, which denied his motion to amend his answer, and (2) a judgment of the same court, dated September 30, 1974, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff a divorce. Order and judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs to cover both appeals. On the record on these appeals, it was a proper exercise of discretion for the Trial Justice to deny defendant leave to serve an amended answer with a counterclaim for divorce on the eve of trial, to limit cross-examination of plaintiff and to exclude testimony on defendant’s behalf with respect to the proposed counterclaim. Further, the trial court’s findings with respect to 12 of the 14 charges of cruelty are amply supported by the evidence. The awards for alimony and child support and the direction that the marital premises be sold and the net proceeds divided equally between the parties were also within proper exercise of the trial court’s discretion under the circumstances. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Margett and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 903, 374 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gardner-v-gardner-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack