From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Forbell v. Forbell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 27, 1948
274 App. Div. 853 (N.Y. App. Div. 1948)

Opinion

September 27, 1948.


Motion for reargument and to resettle order. Motion for reargument granted and decision ( ante, p. 810) amended to read: Appeal by petitioner in a habeas corpus proceeding from order denying his application for visitation of the child of his marriage to respondent and dismissing the writ procured for the purpose of obtaining custody of the child. Order modified on the facts by striking out the first ordering paragraph and by providing in lieu thereof that right of visitation of the infant is granted to petitioner one day a week for three hours, upon notice of intention to visit the child by petitioner, to be given to the mother of the child twenty-four hours in advance of each visit. As so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs. The contention presently advanced respecting the $15 a week payment was not urged on the original argument, hence the rule in Matter of Derer v. Derer ( 262 App. Div. 969) was not given effect in the original decision herein. Should the husband fail to continue to provide for child's support, relief may be sought in the separation action. Carswell, Acting P.J., Johnston, Adel, Nolan and Sneed, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Forbell v. Forbell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 27, 1948
274 App. Div. 853 (N.Y. App. Div. 1948)
Case details for

Matter of Forbell v. Forbell

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ROBERT FORBELL, Appellant, against MONICA FORBELL…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Sep 27, 1948

Citations

274 App. Div. 853 (N.Y. App. Div. 1948)

Citing Cases

People ex Rel. Rugus v. Rugus

The record establishes her contention. It is equally clear, however, that the visitation permitted by the…

MATTER OF SACK v. ELMALEH

In our opinion, there was no power in the court to increase the support payment for the minor children over…