Larkin v. Larkin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Larkin v. Larkin

262 A.D. 868, 28 N.Y.S.2d 269, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6319

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

DecidedJune 16, 1941

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 262 A.D. 868 (Larkin v. Larkin) 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

Larkin v. Larkin, 262 A.D. 868, 28 N.Y.S.2d 269, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6319 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Domestic Relations Court of the City of New York (Family Court), County of Kings, dated October 14, 1940, granting reargument and on reargument adhering to the original decision which directed the appellant to pay three dollars weekly toward the support of his grandchild, reversed on the law and the facts and the proceeding dismissed. The appeal from the order dated September 26,1940, and the appeal from the denial of the motion to dismiss the petition are dismissed. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is not liable for the support of the petitioner. Under the statute the grandfather is only secondarily liable and there is no proof that the child is the recipient of public support or that he is likely to become a public charge. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

Order of the Domestic Relations Court of the City of New York (Family Court), County of Kings, dated October 14, 1940, granting reargument and on reargument adhering to the original decision which directed the appellant to pay three dollars weekly toward the support of his grandchild, reversed on the law and the facts and the proceeding dismissed. The appeal from the order dated September 26,1940, and the appeal from the denial of the motion to dismiss the petition are dismissed. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is not liable for the support of the petitioner. Under the statute the grandfather is only secondarily liable and there is no proof that the child is the recipient of public support or that he is likely to become a public charge. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D. 868, 28 N.Y.S.2d 269, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larkin-v-larkin-nyappdiv-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack