In re Cornell

240 A.D. 996
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 15, 1933·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order in so far as an appeal therefrom has been taken affirmed, without costs. The question of the duty of the husband to provide for the maintenance of the wife in the State hospital is not here. His liability, if it exists, may be enforced by a proceeding under section 77 of the Mental Hygiene Law. No such procedure has been undertaken. As the matter stands, the wife abandoned her husband and thereby lost her right to support and maintenance. The present disposition of the rights of the parties is temporary in its nature. We think the husband is entitled to occupy the property held by the parties as tenants by the entirety without accounting for the value of use and occupation. (Hiles v. Fisher, 144 N. Y. 306; Joslyn v. Joslyn, 9 Hun, 388.) Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur.

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

In re Cornell, 240 A.D. 996 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

240 A.D. 996 (In re Cornell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Leis v. Shaughnessy
26 Misc. 2d 536 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)
In re the Final Accounting of Nugent
250 A.D. 31 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1937)