McLaughlin v. McLaughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McLaughlin v. McLaughlin

29 A.D.2d 554, 285 N.Y.S.2d 792, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2717

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

DecidedDecember 18, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 554 (McLaughlin v. McLaughlin) 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

McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 29 A.D.2d 554, 285 N.Y.S.2d 792, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2717 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens iCounty, dated July 5, 1967, which granted plaintiff a separation and inter alla awarded her alimony and counsel fees, reversed, on the law and the facts and in the interests of justice, without costs, and a new trial granted. Plaintiff’s proof was insufficient to warrant the relief granted by the trial court. No proof was adduced by plaintiff that defendant’s conduct substantially impaired her health; and the isolated acts relied on by plaintiff were not in themselves sufficient to justify a decree of separation (Schapiro v. Schapiro, 27 A D 2d 667; Smith v. Smith, 273 N. Y. 380; Pollitzer v. Pollitzer, 188 App. Div. 861; Davis v. Davis, 1 A D 2d 675). Nevertheless, plaintiff may have curtailed her proof with respect to the grounds of separation and in the interests of justice we believe that a new trial should be granted so that full opportunity will be given to both parties to develop their proof. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens iCounty, dated July 5, 1967, which granted plaintiff a separation and inter alla awarded her alimony and counsel fees, reversed, on the law and the facts and in the interests of justice, without costs, and a new trial granted. Plaintiff’s proof was insufficient to warrant the relief granted by the trial court. No proof was adduced by plaintiff that defendant’s conduct substantially impaired her health; and the isolated acts relied on by plaintiff were not in themselves sufficient to justify a decree of separation (Schapiro v. Schapiro, 27 A D 2d 667; Smith v. Smith, 273 N. Y. 380; Pollitzer v. Pollitzer, 188 App. Div. 861; Davis v. Davis, 1 A D 2d 675). Nevertheless, plaintiff may have curtailed her proof with respect to the grounds of separation and in the interests of justice we believe that a new trial should be granted so that full opportunity will be given to both parties to develop their proof. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 554, 285 N.Y.S.2d 792, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2717, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mclaughlin-v-mclaughlin-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack