Schneider v. Schneider

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schneider v. Schneider

238 A.D. 792

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 1933

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 238 A.D. 792 (Schneider v. Schneider) 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

Schneider v. Schneider, 238 A.D. 792 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed. The findings of fact in the decision supporting the judgment of September 23, 1930, were all essential. They were based on issues tendered by the plaintiff’s own pleadings and proof. The scope of those findings was not lessened by the affirmance of them by this court in connection with an opinion that indicated in some respects narrower reasons for such affirmance. [See 232 App. Div. 71.] If it were deemed important that these findings should be narrowed, an appropriate request for such relief should have been made, and, if improvidently denied, further relief by appeal was available to the plaintiff. [793]*793Plaintiff did not pursue that remedy and, therefore, she may not again litigate the same questions through the medium of her first, second and third defenses in her amended reply. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Carswell, Seudder and Davis, JJ.

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

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed. The findings of fact in the decision supporting the judgment of September 23, 1930, were all essential. They were based on issues tendered by the plaintiff’s own pleadings and proof. The scope of those findings was not lessened by the affirmance of them by this court in connection with an opinion that indicated in some respects narrower reasons for such affirmance. [See 232 App. Div. 71.] If it were deemed important that these findings should be narrowed, an appropriate request for such relief should have been made, and, if improvidently denied, further relief by appeal was available to the plaintiff. [793]*793Plaintiff did not pursue that remedy and, therefore, she may not again litigate the same questions through the medium of her first, second and third defenses in her amended reply. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Carswell, Seudder and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D. 792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schneider-v-schneider-nyappdiv-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack