Hochman v. Hochman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hochman v. Hochman

1 A.D.2d 1015, 151 N.Y.S.2d 479, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5569

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

DecidedMay 7, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 1015 (Hochman v. Hochman) 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

Hochman v. Hochman, 1 A.D.2d 1015, 151 N.Y.S.2d 479, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5569 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by a husband to annul a marriage on the ground of fraud, his wife interposed a counterclaim for separation. The appeal is from an interlocutory judgment entered after trial, annulling the marriage, granting custody of the two infant children to appellant, allowing $20 a week for the support of said children and providing rights of visitation to respondent, and from the decision on which such judgment was entered. Judgment modified on the law and the facts by adding thereto a provision that respondent shall give 24 to 48 hours’ notice to appellant at her home, by telephone or in writing, on each occasion that he intends to exercise his right of visitation. As so modified, judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Findings of fact insofar as they may be inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings are made as indicated herein. In the circumstances of this case, appellant and the children should be spared the disturbance inherent in uncertainty as to whether or when respondent will exercise his rights of visitation under the judgment. Appeal [1016]*1016from decision dismissed. No appeal lies from a decision. (Smith v. D’Esposito, 249 App. Div. 649.) Present — Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ.

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

In an action by a husband to annul a marriage on the ground of fraud, his wife interposed a counterclaim for separation. The appeal is from an interlocutory judgment entered after trial, annulling the marriage, granting custody of the two infant children to appellant, allowing $20 a week for the support of said children and providing rights of visitation to respondent, and from the decision on which such judgment was entered. Judgment modified on the law and the facts by adding thereto a provision that respondent shall give 24 to 48 hours’ notice to appellant at her home, by telephone or in writing, on each occasion that he intends to exercise his right of visitation. As so modified, judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Findings of fact insofar as they may be inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings are made as indicated herein. In the circumstances of this case, appellant and the children should be spared the disturbance inherent in uncertainty as to whether or when respondent will exercise his rights of visitation under the judgment. Appeal [1016]*1016from decision dismissed. No appeal lies from a decision. (Smith v. D’Esposito, 249 App. Div. 649.) Present — Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 1015, 151 N.Y.S.2d 479, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hochman-v-hochman-nyappdiv-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack