Kalman v. Kalman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kalman v. Kalman

275 A.D.2d 715

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 14, 1949·Published

Opinion

[716] In 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] In 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.]

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

Pincite

275 A.D.2d 715 (Kalman v. Kalman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related