Torstenson v. Torstenson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Torstenson v. Torstenson

21 A.D.2d 970, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3167

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 21 A.D.2d 970 (Torstenson v. Torstenson) 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

Torstenson v. Torstenson, 21 A.D.2d 970, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3167 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion granted on the terms and conditions contained in the order to show cause, dated July 30, 1964, and upon the further condition that counsel for defendant submit the name of the person to be in attendance to the plaintiff’s counsel prior to visitation and that counsel for plaintiff be given the right to disapprove the person and require another neutral observer. In ease of inability to agree upon a person, the parties will designate a third person to name the person to be in attendance. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

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

Motion granted on the terms and conditions contained in the order to show cause, dated July 30, 1964, and upon the further condition that counsel for defendant submit the name of the person to be in attendance to the plaintiff’s counsel prior to visitation and that counsel for plaintiff be given the right to disapprove the person and require another neutral observer. In ease of inability to agree upon a person, the parties will designate a third person to name the person to be in attendance. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.2d 970, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torstenson-v-torstenson-nyappdiv-1964.