In re Nordstrand

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Nordstrand

251 A.D. 787, 296 N.Y.S. 47, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7522

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

DecidedMay 12, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D. 787 (In re Nordstrand) 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

In re Nordstrand, 251 A.D. 787, 296 N.Y.S. 47, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7522 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed on the law and the facts as matter of discretion, without costs on this appeal to any party, and matter remitted to the Special Term for a further hearing. Memorandum: On the record before us we reach the conclusion that the denial of the writ was technically erroneous, still the interest of the courts is for the welfare of the child and we are dealing now with a situation which may have changed since the order denying the writ was granted on June 18, 1936. We have, therefore, determined that for the welfare of the child there should be a further hearing so that the court may be advised of the situation existing at the present time in the [788]*788household of the relator and in the household of the respondents. All concur. (The order awards custody of an infant to the maternal grandparents in a habeas corpus proceeding.) Present — Sears, P. J., Edgcomb, Crosby, Lewis and Cunningham, JJ.

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

Order reversed on the law and the facts as matter of discretion, without costs on this appeal to any party, and matter remitted to the Special Term for a further hearing. Memorandum: On the record before us we reach the conclusion that the denial of the writ was technically erroneous, still the interest of the courts is for the welfare of the child and we are dealing now with a situation which may have changed since the order denying the writ was granted on June 18, 1936. We have, therefore, determined that for the welfare of the child there should be a further hearing so that the court may be advised of the situation existing at the present time in the [788]*788household of the relator and in the household of the respondents. All concur. (The order awards custody of an infant to the maternal grandparents in a habeas corpus proceeding.) Present — Sears, P. J., Edgcomb, Crosby, Lewis and Cunningham, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D. 787, 296 N.Y.S. 47, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-nordstrand-nyappdiv-1937.