Holmer v. Holmer
New York Court of Appeals
1Per curiam
The findings in action No. 1, so far as they are supported by the evidence, do not sustain the conclusion of law that plaintiff therein is entitled to a judgment of separation against the defendant. It follows that in action No. 2 defendant was not justified in abandoning plaintiff and !that plaintiff is entitled to a judgment of separation and separate maintenance against the defendant (New York Const, art. VI, § 8).
In action No. 1, the judgment should be reversed and the compláint dismissed, with costs in all courts.
In action No. 2, judgment of separation and separate maintenance and…
2Cited by4 opinions
- O'Leary v. O'LearyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1939
- Murphy v. MurphyNew York Court of Appeals · 1947
- Murphy v. MurphyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1946
- Murphy v. MurphyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1946