BACKAL v. BACKAL


199 Misc. 910 (1951)

Paul Backal, Plaintiff, v. Dorothy Backal, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County.

May 31, 1951.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Abraham Lehman and Henry C. Lehman for defendant.

Samuel J. Kisseloff and Daniel D. Trause for plaintiff.


F. E. JOHNSON, J.

In this divorce action, the defendant neither testified nor appeared in the courtroom, and presented no contradiction, by a witness, to the evidence for the plaintiff. The motion to dismiss is made on the ground that: (1) the plaintiff's proof is not sufficient, and (2) no obligation to testify exists and no inference can be drawn from her failure to do so.

The second objection is sound. The offense is a crime and defendant,...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases