Corporations

In the Matter of Bertha Hertzberg, Respondent, against Morris Hertzberg, Appellant

247 A.D. 351·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1936·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

In the Matter of Bertha Hertzberg, Respondent, against Morris Hertzberg, Appellant. First Department, May 1, 1936. 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. [MAJORITY — Per Curiam.] 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 consequently 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.