People ex rel. Cunningham v. Dunnock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Cunningham v. Dunnock

260 A.D. 1036, 24 N.Y.S.2d 394, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5964

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 260 A.D. 1036 (People ex rel. Cunningham v. Dunnock) 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

People ex rel. Cunningham v. Dunnock, 260 A.D. 1036, 24 N.Y.S.2d 394, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5964 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

This habeas corpus proceeding, instituted by the appellant, the father of a girl eight and one-half years old, to obtain custody of the infant, was referred to an official referee to hear and determine all the issues. The respondents are the infant’s maternal grandparents, with whom the infant has resided since birth. The referee, after extended hearings at which all the parties testified and after interviewing the infant with the consent of the parties, determined that it was for the best interests of the infant that she remain in the custody of respondents. Order dismissing the writs, awarding the custody of the infant to the respondents, and granting the relator the right to visit the infant “ at all reasonable times wherever said Lois D. Cunningham may be living or sojourning,” affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

This habeas corpus proceeding, instituted by the appellant, the father of a girl eight and one-half years old, to obtain custody of the infant, was referred to an official referee to hear and determine all the issues. The respondents are the infant’s maternal grandparents, with whom the infant has resided since birth. The referee, after extended hearings at which all the parties testified and after interviewing the infant with the consent of the parties, determined that it was for the best interests of the infant that she remain in the custody of respondents. Order dismissing the writs, awarding the custody of the infant to the respondents, and granting the relator the right to visit the infant “ at all reasonable times wherever said Lois D. Cunningham may be living or sojourning,” affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D. 1036, 24 N.Y.S.2d 394, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5964, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-cunningham-v-dunnock-nyappdiv-1940.