Larson v. Larson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Larson v. Larson

264 A.D. 388, 35 N.Y.S.2d 505, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4160

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

DecidedJune 19, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D. 388 (Larson v. Larson) 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

Larson v. Larson, 264 A.D. 388, 35 N.Y.S.2d 505, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4160 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Glennon, J.

This is an action for an absolute divorce. The defendant interposed an answer but defaulted on the trial. The uncontradicted evidence of one Ruth Stahlen and her sister Inga Haugan established the commission of the act of adultery during the month of November, 1932. According to the record, the plaintiff first learned of it during the month of August, 1940. Since the testimony of the witnesses was, not impeached or contradicted and is not incredible upon its face, we are of the opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to the entry of an interlocutory decree in his favor.

It follows, therefore, that the judgment should be reversed and an interlocutory judgment of divorce directed to be entered in favor of the plaintiff. ■

Martin, P. J., Townley and Untermyer, JJ., concur; Dore, J., dissents.

Judgment reversed and an interlocutory judgment of divorce directed to be entered in favor of the plaintiff. Settle order on notice, reversing findings inconsistent with this determination, and containing such new findings of fact proved upon the trial as are necessary to sustain the judgment hereby awarded.

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

Glennon, J.

This is an action for an absolute divorce. The defendant interposed an answer but defaulted on the trial. The uncontradicted evidence of one Ruth Stahlen and her sister Inga Haugan established the commission of the act of adultery during the month of November, 1932. According to the record, the plaintiff first learned of it during the month of August, 1940. Since the testimony of the witnesses was, not impeached or contradicted and is not incredible upon its face, we are of the opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to the entry of an interlocutory decree in his favor.

It follows, therefore, that the judgment should be reversed and an interlocutory judgment of divorce directed to be entered in favor of the plaintiff. ■

Martin, P. J., Townley and Untermyer, JJ., concur; Dore, J., dissents.

Judgment reversed and an interlocutory judgment of divorce directed to be entered in favor of the plaintiff. Settle order on notice, reversing findings inconsistent with this determination, and containing such new findings of fact proved upon the trial as are necessary to sustain the judgment hereby awarded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D. 388, 35 N.Y.S.2d 505, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larson-v-larson-nyappdiv-1942.