Legal Opinion

Hirsch v. Hirsch

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

Decided February 15, 1934Published

1Opinion of the Court

Orders reversed and motion denied. As plaintiff states that he will limit his proof to one specific act alleged in paragraph 4 of the complaint, the bill ordered was unnecessary. The plaintiff will have the right to rely upon the allegations of said paragraph to prove course of conduct. (Ketcham v. Ketcham, 32 App. Div. 26; Krauss v. Krauss, 73 id. 509.) Present — Finch, P. J., Merrell, Martin, O’Malley and Untermyer, JJ.

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Ketcham v. KetchamAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898