Schenkel v. Schenkel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schenkel v. Schenkel

238 A.D. 878

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 238 A.D. 878 (Schenkel v. Schenkel) 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

Schenkel v. Schenkel, 238 A.D. 878 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The payment of alimony should have ceased upon the reversal of the judgment. The “ sixth ” finding of fact as to the proper amount of alimony was not reversed but alimony was payable because of the provisions of the judgment and upon reversal payment thereof was no longer required. It is not the court’s practice to reverse “ conclusions of law;” they fall when the supporting findings of fact are reversed. A modification of the judgment to permit a new trial of the action is discussed in an opposing affidavit and in a letter written by plaintiff to the court,. but no motion of that kind is before the court and for that reason is not considered. Hill, P. J., Rhodes, Crapser and Bliss, JJ., concur. Motion to correct decision denied.

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

Per Curiam.

The payment of alimony should have ceased upon the reversal of the judgment. The “ sixth ” finding of fact as to the proper amount of alimony was not reversed but alimony was payable because of the provisions of the judgment and upon reversal payment thereof was no longer required. It is not the court’s practice to reverse “ conclusions of law;” they fall when the supporting findings of fact are reversed. A modification of the judgment to permit a new trial of the action is discussed in an opposing affidavit and in a letter written by plaintiff to the court,. but no motion of that kind is before the court and for that reason is not considered. Hill, P. J., Rhodes, Crapser and Bliss, JJ., concur. Motion to correct decision denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D. 878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schenkel-v-schenkel-nyappdiv-1933.