Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
General
The People of the State of New York ex rel. Birdie S. Sternberger, Respondent, v. Louis Sternberger, Appellant, Impleaded with Others
153 N.Y. 684·New York Court of Appeals·1897·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
The People of the State of New York ex rel. Birdie S. Sternberger, Respondent, v. Louis Sternberger, Appellant, Impleaded with Others.
People ex rel. Sternberger v. Sternberger, 13 App. Div. 398, appeal dismissed.
(Argued June 21, 1897;
decided October 5, 1897.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 14, 1897, which reversed an order of Special Term in a habeas corpus proceeding, denying the relator’s motion to confirm the report of a referee awarding to the relator the custody of her children, and granted a motion for a final order confirming the referee’s report.
George Zdbrislcie for appellant.
JElihu Hoot and Joseph IT. Ghoate for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
This appeal is dismissed upon the following grounds:
1. The order of the Appellate Division is discretionary and we have no power to review it.
2. This discretion was exercised after the court below had unanimously decided, on considering the facts, that it was for the benefit and welfare of the infants that they be confided, until the further order of the court, to the care and custody of their mother.
We must assume that the evidence was sufficient to warrant the conclusion reached by the Appellate Division.
The appeal should be dismissed, with costs.
All concur, except Gray, J., absent.
Appeal dismissed.