In re Rodes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Rodes

10 A.D.2d 974, 201 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10032

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

DecidedMay 16, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 974 (In re Rodes) 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 Rodes, 10 A.D.2d 974, 201 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10032 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding by the wife, Beverly I. Rodes, against her husband, Oscar Rodes, to obtain the custody of their two children, the husband appeals from an order of the Special Term, Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 30, 1959, which, inter alla, adjudges him [975]*975in contempt of court. Appeal dismissed, without costs, as academic. This court is in receipt of a certified copy of an order of the Special Term, dated March 30, 1960, vacating the order appealed from upon the written stipulation and consent of the wife, acknowledged March 22, 1960. She is the moving party in this proceeding. Hence, there is nothing before this court for review. Beldock, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In a habeas corpus proceeding by the wife, Beverly I. Rodes, against her husband, Oscar Rodes, to obtain the custody of their two children, the husband appeals from an order of the Special Term, Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 30, 1959, which, inter alla, adjudges him [975]*975in contempt of court. Appeal dismissed, without costs, as academic. This court is in receipt of a certified copy of an order of the Special Term, dated March 30, 1960, vacating the order appealed from upon the written stipulation and consent of the wife, acknowledged March 22, 1960. She is the moving party in this proceeding. Hence, there is nothing before this court for review. Beldock, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 974, 201 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10032, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rodes-nyappdiv-1960.