Hirsch v. Hirsch
241 A.D. 675
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 15, 1934·Published
Opinion
Orders reversed and motion denied. As plaintiff states that he will limit his proof to one specific act alleged in paragraph 4 of the complaint, the bill ordered was unnecessary. The plaintiff will have the right to rely upon the allegations of said paragraph to prove course of conduct. (Ketcham v. Ketcham, 32 App. Div. 26; Krauss v. Krauss, 73 id. 509.) Present — Finch, P. J., Merrell, Martin, O’Malley and Untermyer, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hirsch v. Hirsch, 241 A.D. 675 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).
241 A.D. 675 (Hirsch v. Hirsch) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Ketcham v. Ketcham
32 A.D. 26 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)