Rosenberg v. Rosenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosenberg v. Rosenberg

57 A.D.2d 921, 395 N.Y.S.2d 50, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12169

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

DecidedMay 23, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.2d 921 (Rosenberg v. Rosenberg) 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

Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 57 A.D.2d 921, 395 N.Y.S.2d 50, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12169 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action, defendant appeals from stated portions of an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated December 31, 1975, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. (A cross appeal by plaintiff from stated portions of the said interlocutory judgment has apparently been abandoned.) Interlocutory judgment affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs. There is ample testimony in the record to support the interlocutory judgment granting the plaintiff-respondent a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. We find no merit to defendant-appellant’s conten[922]*922tion that he was wrongfully denied a jury trial with regard to his counterclaim for divorce on the ground of plaintiffs alleged adultery (see Downing v Downing, 32 AD2d 350; Gonzalez v Concourse Plaza Syndicates, 41 NY2d 414). Cohalan, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and Mollen, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action, defendant appeals from stated portions of an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated December 31, 1975, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. (A cross appeal by plaintiff from stated portions of the said interlocutory judgment has apparently been abandoned.) Interlocutory judgment affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs. There is ample testimony in the record to support the interlocutory judgment granting the plaintiff-respondent a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. We find no merit to defendant-appellant’s conten[922]*922tion that he was wrongfully denied a jury trial with regard to his counterclaim for divorce on the ground of plaintiffs alleged adultery (see Downing v Downing, 32 AD2d 350; Gonzalez v Concourse Plaza Syndicates, 41 NY2d 414). Cohalan, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and Mollen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 921, 395 N.Y.S.2d 50, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenberg-v-rosenberg-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack