Kalman v. Kalman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kalman v. Kalman

275 A.D.2d 715

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

DecidedMarch 14, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 715 (Kalman v. Kalman) 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

Kalman v. Kalman, 275 A.D.2d 715 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

[716]*716In our opinion the determination in favor of respondent was contrary to the weight of the evidence. Further, the admission of evidence that upon the trial of the divorce action, the court had remarked that the testimony of appellant and her witnesses had been “ given with the intent of deceiving the Court ” and that their testimony was “ rejected as untrue and not worthy of belief ”, was not conducive to a fair and impartial appraisal of appellant’s testimony upon the present trial. Sneed, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur; Carswell, Acting P. J., and Johnston, J., dissent and vote to affirm on the authority of Tiedemann v. Tiedemann (201 App. Div. 614, affd. 236 N. Y. 534) and Boyd v. Boyd (252 N. Y. 422). [See post, p. 770.]

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

[716]*716In our opinion the determination in favor of respondent was contrary to the weight of the evidence. Further, the admission of evidence that upon the trial of the divorce action, the court had remarked that the testimony of appellant and her witnesses had been “ given with the intent of deceiving the Court ” and that their testimony was “ rejected as untrue and not worthy of belief ”, was not conducive to a fair and impartial appraisal of appellant’s testimony upon the present trial. Sneed, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur; Carswell, Acting P. J., and Johnston, J., dissent and vote to affirm on the authority of Tiedemann v. Tiedemann (201 App. Div. 614, affd. 236 N. Y. 534) and Boyd v. Boyd (252 N. Y. 422). [See post, p. 770.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kalman-v-kalman-nyappdiv-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack