Owens v. Owens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Owens v. Owens

281 A.D. 884, 119 N.Y.S.2d 484, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3675

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

DecidedMarch 2, 1953

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 281 A.D. 884 (Owens v. Owens) 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

Owens v. Owens, 281 A.D. 884, 119 N.Y.S.2d 484, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3675 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for separation on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment and abandonment, judgment dismissing the complaint reversed on the law, without costs, and action remitted to Special Term for a proper decision pursuant to section 440 of the Civil Practice Act. The finding of the trial court that “plaintiff has failed by a fair preponderance of the credible proof to establish her cause of action” is insufficient to enable us to determine what facts the court deemed essential, or the allegations of the complaint as to which it concluded that plaintiff has not sustained the burden of proof. (Mario v. Be Oteris, 275 App. Div. 790; Hartman v. Hartman, 279 App. Div. 606; Williams v. WilUams, 281 App. Div. 691.) Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Schmidt and Beldock, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for separation on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment and abandonment, judgment dismissing the complaint reversed on the law, without costs, and action remitted to Special Term for a proper decision pursuant to section 440 of the Civil Practice Act. The finding of the trial court that “plaintiff has failed by a fair preponderance of the credible proof to establish her cause of action” is insufficient to enable us to determine what facts the court deemed essential, or the allegations of the complaint as to which it concluded that plaintiff has not sustained the burden of proof. (Mario v. Be Oteris, 275 App. Div. 790; Hartman v. Hartman, 279 App. Div. 606; Williams v. WilUams, 281 App. Div. 691.) Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Schmidt and Beldock, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D. 884, 119 N.Y.S.2d 484, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/owens-v-owens-nyappdiv-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack