Hamilton v. Hamilton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hamilton v. Hamilton

254 A.D. 748, 4 N.Y.S.2d 155, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7454

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

DecidedMay 6, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 254 A.D. 748 (Hamilton v. Hamilton) 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

Hamilton v. Hamilton, 254 A.D. 748, 4 N.Y.S.2d 155, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7454 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Domestic Relations Court of the City of New York (Family Court), Kings County, directing appellant to pay for the support of petitioner, his wife, reversed on the law, without costs, and the petition dismissed, without costs. The proof does not show changed circumstances on the part of the petitioner or a likelihood of her becoming a public charge. In our opinion appellant’s offer of settlement, without prejudice, was fair and might well have been accepted. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell and Adel, JJ., concur; Hagarty and Close, JJ., concur for reversal but dissent from the dismissal of the petition and vote for a new trial on the ground that the medical testimony was improperly excluded.

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

Order of the Domestic Relations Court of the City of New York (Family Court), Kings County, directing appellant to pay for the support of petitioner, his wife, reversed on the law, without costs, and the petition dismissed, without costs. The proof does not show changed circumstances on the part of the petitioner or a likelihood of her becoming a public charge. In our opinion appellant’s offer of settlement, without prejudice, was fair and might well have been accepted. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell and Adel, JJ., concur; Hagarty and Close, JJ., concur for reversal but dissent from the dismissal of the petition and vote for a new trial on the ground that the medical testimony was improperly excluded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 748, 4 N.Y.S.2d 155, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-hamilton-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack