O'Kelly v. Hill
This text of 257 A.D. 631 (O'Kelly v. Hill) 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.
Opinion
The petitioner was only entitled to “ an opportunity of making an explanation ” (Dom. Rel. Ct. Act, §§ 16 and 17) after due notice upon written charges. (People ex rel. Lee v. Waring, 1 App. Div. 594; affd., 149 N. Y. 621; People ex rel. Throckmorton v. McCartney, 28 App. Div. 138; People ex rel. McNeile v. Glynn, 128 id. 257; People ex rel. Conti v. Kempner, 144 id. 339.) Since it is conceded that there was full compliance with these conditions, the determination should be confirmed, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements, and the petition dismissed.
Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Glennon and Untermyer, JJ.
Determination unanimously confirmed, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements, and the petition dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
257 A.D. 631, 15 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/okelly-v-hill-nyappdiv-1939.