In re the Adoption of Brundage

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Adoption of Brundage

282 A.D. 880, 124 N.Y.S.2d 633

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

DecidedOctober 13, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D. 880 (In re the Adoption of Brundage) 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 the Adoption of Brundage, 282 A.D. 880, 124 N.Y.S.2d 633 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by petitioner from an order made by the County Judge of Orange County denying petitioner’s motion for an order, prior to the hearing and determination of any question of fact, vacating and setting aside an order of adoption. When the petition came on to be heard before the County Judge, and before any answer had been served, petitioner moved on the law for the relief sought by the petition. The County Judge denied the motion, gave respondent twenty days to answer, and adjourned the hearing until a later date. Insofar as the record discloses, petitioner’s application has not been decided. Appeal dismissed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The order is not appealable. No substantial right of the petitioner has been affected, since the order merely postpones the determination sought until a later date, and denies relief until the application shall be fully submitted. (Cf. Jackman v. Hasbrouck, 168 App. Div. 256.) Nolan, P. J., Adel, MaeCrate, Schmidt and Beldoek, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by petitioner from an order made by the County Judge of Orange County denying petitioner’s motion for an order, prior to the hearing and determination of any question of fact, vacating and setting aside an order of adoption. When the petition came on to be heard before the County Judge, and before any answer had been served, petitioner moved on the law for the relief sought by the petition. The County Judge denied the motion, gave respondent twenty days to answer, and adjourned the hearing until a later date. Insofar as the record discloses, petitioner’s application has not been decided. Appeal dismissed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The order is not appealable. No substantial right of the petitioner has been affected, since the order merely postpones the determination sought until a later date, and denies relief until the application shall be fully submitted. (Cf. Jackman v. Hasbrouck, 168 App. Div. 256.) Nolan, P. J., Adel, MaeCrate, Schmidt and Beldoek, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D. 880, 124 N.Y.S.2d 633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-adoption-of-brundage-nyappdiv-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack