Gluckstern v. Gluckstern

New York Court of Appeals

Gluckstern v. Gluckstern

151 N.E.2d 897, 4 N.Y.2d 521, 176 N.Y.S.2d 352, 1958 N.Y. LEXIS 869

New York Court of Appeals·Decided June 25, 1958·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Whether or not there was legal justification for the physical assaults upon and abandonment of his wife by the appellant was, on the present record, a question of fact. Since the trial court’s decision on that question has been affirmed by the Appellate Division, it is beyond our purview. The decision on the matter of the custody of Lewis Jay, youngest of three children to the marriage, is also unimpeachable here. The evidence tending to establish the mother’s devotion and fitness as a custodian, even when considered with the [524] disadvantages consequent upon the difference between the mother’s chosen religion and that to which the child had earlier been exposed, provided a reasonable basis for the trial court’s exercise of discretion. That matter, therefore, creates no issue of law (Harrington v. Harrington, 290 N. Y. 126; Kruczek v. Kruczek, 264 App. Div. 242, affd. 289 N. Y. 826).

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Chief Judge Conway and Judges Desmond, Dye, Fuld, Feoessel, Van Voorhis and Burke concur.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Whether or not there was legal justification for the physical assaults upon and abandonment of his wife by the appellant was, on the present record, a question of fact. Since the trial court’s decision on that question has been affirmed by the Appellate Division, it is beyond our purview. The decision on the matter of the custody of Lewis Jay, youngest of three children to the marriage, is also unimpeachable here. The evidence tending to establish the mother’s devotion and fitness as a custodian, even when considered with the [524] disadvantages consequent upon the difference between the mother’s chosen religion and that to which the child had earlier been exposed, provided a reasonable basis for the trial court’s exercise of discretion. That matter, therefore, creates no issue of law (Harrington v. Harrington, 290 N. Y. 126; Kruczek v. Kruczek, 264 App. Div. 242, affd. 289 N. Y. 826).

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Chief Judge Conway and Judges Desmond, Dye, Fuld, Feoessel, Van Voorhis and Burke concur.

Judgment affirmed.

Gluckstern v. Gluckstern, 151 N.E.2d 897, 4 N.Y.2d 521, 176 N.Y.S.2d 352, 1958 N.Y. LEXIS 869 (N.Y. 1958).

Pincite

151 N.E.2d 897 (Gluckstern v. Gluckstern) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related