In re Nordstrand

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Nordstrand

254 A.D. 646, 4 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6866

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

DecidedMarch 25, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D. 646 (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, 254 A.D. 646, 4 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The trial justice has conducted a further hearing in this proceeding exactly as we intended it to be conducted by our order of May 12,1937. [See 251 App. Div. 787.] By that order we intended to determine that on the record before us, the petitioner was entitled to the custody of the child. It was only because a considerable lapse of time had followed the original hearing that we directed a further hearing. Our order, as we intended and as we construe it, was equivalent to a granting of the writ with a suspension of its operation until the parties had had an opportunity to show whether or not a change in conditions had occurred subsequent to the date of the original hearing. All concur. (The order grants custody of an infant to petitioner.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Dowling, JJ.

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

Order affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The trial justice has conducted a further hearing in this proceeding exactly as we intended it to be conducted by our order of May 12,1937. [See 251 App. Div. 787.] By that order we intended to determine that on the record before us, the petitioner was entitled to the custody of the child. It was only because a considerable lapse of time had followed the original hearing that we directed a further hearing. Our order, as we intended and as we construe it, was equivalent to a granting of the writ with a suspension of its operation until the parties had had an opportunity to show whether or not a change in conditions had occurred subsequent to the date of the original hearing. All concur. (The order grants custody of an infant to petitioner.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Dowling, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 646, 4 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-nordstrand-nyappdiv-1938.