Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1936

Hertzberg v. Hertzberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided May 1, 1936

247 A.D. 351; 287 N.Y.S. 418; 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8261

Counsel

Murray Kurman, for the appellant., Arthur Bainbridge Hoff, Jr., of counsel [Paxton Blair with him on the brief; Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel, attorney], for the respondent.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The record contains no proof of the marriage of the parties upon which a finding may be based that defendant under the law owes petitioner support and maintenance. We are *352consequently unable to support the ruling made in the Domestic Relations Court, and it should be reversed and a new hearing ordered.

Present — Martin, P. J., McAvoy, O’Malley, Untermyer and Cohn, JJ.

Order unanimously reversed and a new hearing ordered.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.