Commrade v. Commrade
| Decision Date | 11 March 1968 |
| Citation | 288 N.Y.S.2d 329,29 A.D.2d 870 |
| Parties | Therese COMMRADE, Appellant, v. Frank COMMRADE, Jr., Administrator of the Estate of Frank Commrade, Deceased, substituted for Frank Commrade, Deceased, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Harvey L. Strelzin, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant; Rachel B. Backer, New York City, of counsel.
Joel S. Sankel, New York City, for defendant-respondent.
Before BELDOCK, P.J., and BRENNAN, RABIN, HOPKINS and BENJAMIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action for separation, the plaintiff wife appeals from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated February 25, 1966, which dismissed her complaint on the merits after trial, and (2) an order of said court dated May 2, 1966, which denied her motion to vacate the decision dated February 25, 1966 and said judgment and for other relief.
Order affirmed, without costs. On the Court's own motion, judgment and said decision are modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, so as to amend the date thereof to February 1, 1966, Nunc pro tunc. Judgment affirmed as so modified, without costs. The findings of fact are affirmed, except that finding of fact number 10 in said decision, which states: 'That the plaintiff abandoned the defendant without justification,' is reversed, as there was no counterclaim and this finding went beyond the scopoe of the prior memorandum decision dated February 1, 1966.
The trial was concluded on October 18, 1965 and the parties stipulated to extend the trial judge's time to render a decision. The memorandum decision, dated February 1, 1966, reads as follows:
On February 10, 1966 plaintiff's attorney was served with defendant-husband's proposed decision (findings of fact and conclusions of law) and judgment. The husband died on February 13, 1966 and the formal decision and the judgment were signed on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Luck Builders, Inc. v. Uccellini (In re Uccellini)
...196, 196, 648 N.Y.S.2d 74 [1996], appeal dismissed 89 N.Y.2d 981, 656 N.Y.S.2d 739, 678 N.E.2d 1355 [1997] ; Commrade v. Commrade, 29 A.D.2d 870, 871, 288 N.Y.S.2d 329 [1968] ). In Matter of Herrick, 170 Misc. 465, 10 N.Y.S.2d 471 (Sur. Ct., N.Y. County 1939), the court was confronted with ......
-
Jayson v. Jayson
...pro tunc. (Lynch v. Lynch, 16 A.D.2d 157, 226 N.Y.S.2d 491, aff'd 13 N.Y.2d 615, 240 N.Y.S.2d 604, 191 N.E.2d 90; Commrade v. Commrade, 29 A.D.2d 870, 288 N.Y.S.2d 327). In Merrick v. Merrick, 266 N.Y. 120, at page 122, 194 N.E. 55, at page 56, the Court of Appeals stated: 'When a ruling ha......
-
Hinden v. Hinden
...affect the validity of the court's decision (see, Cornell v. Cornell, 7 N.Y.2d 164, 196 N.Y.S.2d 98, 164 N.E.2d 395; Commrade v. Commrade, 29 A.D.2d 870, 288 N.Y.S.2d 329). While this court may apply the new provision pursuant to CPLR 10003 (see, Kahrs v. Kahrs, 111 A.D.2d 370, 489 N.Y.S.2d......
-
Cooper v. Cooper
...13, 1969, was a ministerial act only and should be effective as of and relate back to the date of the decision. (Commrade v. Commrade, 29 A.D.2d 870, 288 N.Y.S.2d 329) Further, absent the direction of the Court to permit a late filing of the notice of commencement of action, this action, al......