People ex rel. Glendening v. Glendening

• Decision Date: 19 June 1939
• Citation: 22 N.E.2d 169,281 N.Y. 602
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. Harold S. GLENDENING, respondent, v. Alicia M. GLENDENING, appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

281 N.Y. 602

22 N.E.2d 169

PEOPLE ex rel. Harold S. GLENDENING, respondent,

v.Alicia M. GLENDENING, appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 19, 1939.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 256 App.Div. 359, 10 N.Y.S.2d 17.

Habeas corpus proceeding by the People, on the relation of Harold Sanford Glendening, against Alicia Maddox Glendening, wherein the respondent moved to modify an order entered on February 25, 1936, by directing that the custody of an infant son be awarded to her, and wherein the relator by cross-motion requested that the rights of visitation theretofore given to respondent should be restricted.

The relator and respondent were married in England on June 28, 1922. One child, a son, was born of the marriage on July 27, 1923, in France. The parties on July 14, 1924, became residents of New York County where the relator has at all times since remained. He is a member of the bar of this state engaged in the practice of his profession. The father and mother of the child lived together while here until February 11, 1925, when she left the relator and her infant son and refused to return to her home. In May of that year the relator took the child to his mother's home in Norwalk, Connecticut. Thereafter the respondent instituted a habeas corpus proceeding and an order was entered upon consent on May 29, 1925, granting the custody of the child to the mother and providing for the right of visitation on the part of the father for a period down to and including June 1, 1926.

She went to Reno, Nevada, on August 5, 1925, and took the child with her without the relator's knowledge or consent. Her purpose was to procure a divorce. She sought to have the relator appear in the action. Believing that a divorce would have a bad effect upon the life of the child, the relator absolutely refused to do so. The respondent even offered her husband the sum of $75,000 for an appearance in the Nevada action. He did not accept. Nevertheless, without his appearance, she procured a divorce on September 11, 1926. During the same month she returned and again took up residence in New York City.

An arrangement was entered into between the parties on November 10, 1928, which provided for the custody of the child and the right of visitation. The agreement in part provided that the child was not to be taken out of a school ‘or any great distance from New York without consultation.’ Nevertheless, the respondent within three months thereafter took...