Legal Opinion
Bertha G. v. Paul T.
New York City Family Court
Decided December 6, 1986PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Richard M. Palmer, J.
The court has held a traverse hearing. Petitioner did not have an attorney and was not entitled to one at public expense under Family Court Act § 262. Both parties testified.
There was only a minor dispute as to the facts.
On June 24th at a graduation exercise at Great Neck Road Elementary School, Bernice T. handed the summons and petition to respondent. They were in a plain envelope addressed to him. Petitioner was present. According to her, respondent dropped the envelope on a table he was standing by. According to him, he handed the envelope back to…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Bossuk v. SteinbergNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- In re the Probate of Last Will of BonesteelAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1962
- Roth v. W. T. Cowan, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1951
- Heller v. LevinsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1915
- Jackson v. Schuylkill Silk MillsAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1915
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Ihim v. IhimAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Ihim v. IhimAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Singh v. Meadow Hill Mobile, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2023