Vernes v. Vernes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vernes v. Vernes

245 A.D. 738

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

DecidedJune 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D. 738 (Vernes v. Vernes) 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

Vernes v. Vernes, 245 A.D. 738 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment adjudging that plaintiff is the true owner of certain premises situate in Brooklyn and Hastings-on-Hudson, and directing the defendant, his wife, from whom he has procured a judgment of separation, to convey the premises to him by quitclaim deed, reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, costs to appellant to abide the event, upon the ground that the determination is against the weight of the evidence, and upon the further ground that the court erred in excluding documentary proof that defendant had issued checks in payment of the purchase price of the Brooklyn property and for the improvement thereof. Findings of fact inconsistent with this decision are reversed. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Scudder, Tompkins and Johnston, JJ., concur. Settle order on notice.

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

Judgment adjudging that plaintiff is the true owner of certain premises situate in Brooklyn and Hastings-on-Hudson, and directing the defendant, his wife, from whom he has procured a judgment of separation, to convey the premises to him by quitclaim deed, reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, costs to appellant to abide the event, upon the ground that the determination is against the weight of the evidence, and upon the further ground that the court erred in excluding documentary proof that defendant had issued checks in payment of the purchase price of the Brooklyn property and for the improvement thereof. Findings of fact inconsistent with this decision are reversed. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Scudder, Tompkins and Johnston, JJ., concur. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D. 738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vernes-v-vernes-nyappdiv-1935.