Hornreich v. Hornreich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hornreich v. Hornreich

262 A.D. 1031, 30 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7113

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

DecidedOctober 14, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D. 1031 (Hornreich v. Hornreich) 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

Hornreich v. Hornreich, 262 A.D. 1031, 30 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7113 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

From an order dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint, and the judgment entered thereon in favor of the defendant, in an action for divorce, the plaintiff appeals. Order, in so far as appealed from, and judgment, affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Hagarty, Carswell and Close, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Taylor, J., dissent and vote to reverse the order, in so far as appealed from, and the judgment, and to grant a new trial, on the grounds: (a) The verdict of the jury was against the weight of the evidence, (b) It was serious error for the court to refuse to permit plaintiff fully to interrogate the corespondent as to the identity of the woman with whom he says he was at the time of the incident which is the subject of the action.

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

From an order dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint, and the judgment entered thereon in favor of the defendant, in an action for divorce, the plaintiff appeals. Order, in so far as appealed from, and judgment, affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Hagarty, Carswell and Close, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Taylor, J., dissent and vote to reverse the order, in so far as appealed from, and the judgment, and to grant a new trial, on the grounds: (a) The verdict of the jury was against the weight of the evidence, (b) It was serious error for the court to refuse to permit plaintiff fully to interrogate the corespondent as to the identity of the woman with whom he says he was at the time of the incident which is the subject of the action.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D. 1031, 30 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hornreich-v-hornreich-nyappdiv-1941.