People ex rel. Garber v. Garber

18 A.D.2d 990, 238 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4158

This text of 18 A.D.2d 990 (People ex rel. Garber v. Garber) 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. Garber v. Garber, 18 A.D.2d 990, 238 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4158 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Opinion

Order entered on April 26, 1962, denying relator’s motion for a; rehearing, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The notice of motion dated April 3, 1962 sought “ a rehearing of the writ of habeas corpus previously disposed of before this Court”. The disposition was grounded on the stipulation of the parties before the court. No final order was entered. When the application for a rehearing came on at Special Term, it was properly referred to the Justice before whom the hearing on the writ was held. (Cf. Travitzky v. Schamroth, 277 App. Div. 1018.) It was improper to refuse to entertain the referral, particularly when no final order had been made and the Justice who heard the writ was available. A habeas corpus proceeding is a summary one and procedures tending to delay are incompatible with its primary objective of prompt disposition. (People ex rel. Wood-bury v. Hendrick, 215 N. Y. 339; People ex rel. Heller v. Heller, 183 Misc. 630, affd. 268 App. Div. 976.) Relator seeks to be relieved of his stipulation entered into before the court including provision for the furnishing’ of a bond. In a proper ease, absent prejudice, a party may be relieved of his stipulation. However, the application for such relief is required to be grounded on factual allegations justifying the exercise of judicial discretion. (Matter of New York, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co., 98 N. Y. 447, 453; Magnolia Metal Co. v. Pound, 60 App. Div. 318, 320; Balbert v. Balbert, 190 Misc. 628, 631.) Here, however, relator has failed to factually allege financial or other inability to furnish the stipulated bond. Towards the end of a final disposition (cf. People ex rel. Handler v. Handler, 282 App. Div. 694) a final order may be entered awarding custody to respondent wife and providing for visitation rights to the relator on each Sunday between the hours of 1:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. at the residence of the respondent. This is without prejudice to relator’s right to apply to be relieved of the stipulation upon a proper factual showing of financial or other inability to comply with the stipulation for a bond as a condition of temporary custody. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.

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

Related

People Ex Rel. Woodbury v. . Hendrick
109 N.E. 486 (New York Court of Appeals, 1915)
Magnolia Metal Co. v. Pound
60 A.D. 318 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1901)
People ex rel. Grant v. Grant
268 A.D. 976 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1944)
People ex rel. Handler v. Handler
282 A.D. 694 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1953)
People ex rel. Heller v. Heller
183 Misc. 630 (New York Supreme Court, 1944)
Balbert v. Balbert
190 Misc. 628 (New York Supreme Court, 1947)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 A.D.2d 990, 238 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-garber-v-garber-nyappdiv-1963.