Miorin v. Miorin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miorin v. Miorin

254 A.D. 619, 3 N.Y.S.2d 79, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6754

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D. 619 (Miorin v. Miorin) 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

Miorin v. Miorin, 254 A.D. 619, 3 N.Y.S.2d 79, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6754 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from two orders of the Special Term of the Supreme Court, the first denying defendant’s motion to strike out the name “ Miorin ” from the name of the plaintiff, and for a judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the Children’s Court had exclusive jurisdiction; and the second denying defendant’s motion to require plaintiff to serve an amended complaint in which each cause of action shall be separately stated and numbered. The action is for breach of a single contract made by defendant’s testator to pay for plaintiff’s support and maintenance during his minority and to make adequate provision for his maintenance, support and education in case of the testator’s death,. Orders unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, McNamee, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.

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

Appeal by the defendant from two orders of the Special Term of the Supreme Court, the first denying defendant’s motion to strike out the name “ Miorin ” from the name of the plaintiff, and for a judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the Children’s Court had exclusive jurisdiction; and the second denying defendant’s motion to require plaintiff to serve an amended complaint in which each cause of action shall be separately stated and numbered. The action is for breach of a single contract made by defendant’s testator to pay for plaintiff’s support and maintenance during his minority and to make adequate provision for his maintenance, support and education in case of the testator’s death,. Orders unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, McNamee, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 619, 3 N.Y.S.2d 79, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miorin-v-miorin-nyappdiv-1938.