Hi Everyone. I know that NY has census records in between the federal census (1905, 1915...). To access these, do you have to have an address? It seems that major things went on between these years leaving puzzling gaps and since they moved around, it's hard to know where they lived. My ggfather arrived in 1881, he lived in Rocky Point, in 1900; then he died in NYC in 1906. There are kids listed on the 1900 census that are not all from his wife of that time. Then his wife from the 1900 census, shows up remarried in 1910 with a 4 yr. old child (don't know if it's hers or her new husband's). From Rocky Point,L.I.,she goes to VA and then back to the Bronx and dies in Richmond in 1923. So...I'd love to fill in these gaps by looking at some of the NY census, but I don't have addresses. I'd appreciate suggestions. Thanks, Liz _________________________________________________________________ Time for vacation? WIN what you need- enter now! http://www.gowindowslive.com/summergiveaway/?ocid=tag_jlyhm

In a message dated 16/07/08 15:24:57, mlomax1074@gmail.com writes: > It has been reported on this list that because of the restrictive divorce > laws in New York State in the 1940s and 1950s, spouses frequently filed for > divorce in Florida.  Does anyone know if particular cities or counties in > Florida were more popular than others?  I'm trying to locate a divorce > record for a New York couple who might have divorced in Florida in the > 1940s.  I'd like to identify places I should write. > > Mark Lomax > California > > The microfiche index to FL divorce records are available in several libraries in FL. I know they are in libraries in Orlando, Cocoa, and Vero Beach. A request with a name and date span should get you a result. Betty. ************** Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com! (http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)

Divorce : History of Divorce In New York - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Before the enactment of Alexander Hamilton's divorce law in 1787, nonjudicial divorces had been granted in New Netherlands, under the "Duke's Laws", and at different periods by the royal governor, sometimes on grounds other than adultery. During the period of the Dutch rule of New Netherlands an occasional divorce was granted. In 1655 John Hickes of Flushing presented a petition for divorce to the colonial council alleging that his wife had deserted him for nine years and had procreated five or six children by another man. The council granted him "letters of divorce" and authorized him to marry "some honest maid or widow." The records of Rhode Island show that in 1640 the wife, who had been married to Hickes at age thirteen, had obtained a divorce in Rhode Island. New Netherlands records show two other cases of absolute divorce, one in 1657 for a wife's adultery, and another in 1664 for a bigamous marriage of the husband while in Amsterdam. After the English conquest of New Netherlands in 1664, divorces continued to be granted sporadically for the next eleven years. The "Duke's Laws" provided that where a husband or wife had been traveling "into any forraigne Parts" and had not been heard from for five years such party might be presumed dead and the other was free to marry, and in another clause indirectly permitted divorce in cases of adultery. The early English governors apparently felt that they had authority to grant divorces. In 1669 a divorce was granted for a wife's adultery and in another case for the husband's impotence. Several other divorces were granted before 1675. In that year the governor apparently decided that assumption of divorce jurisdiction was of doubtful legality and there is no clear evidence of any further divorces being granted in New York for the rest of the colonial period. However, there are indications that governors were receiving divorce petitions as late as 1711. One colonial official writing in 1759 noted that governors had ceased granting divorces since 1688. On January 22, 1787, the New York legislature received a petition from Isaac Gouverneur, Jr., a member of a prominent New York City family, praying for a divorce on the ground of his wife's adultery. The request was referred to a special committee under the chairmanship of Alexander Hamilton. The committee brought in a bill providing for the first general divorce law in New York, limited to cases of adultery, and stipulating that it should not be lawful for the party convicted of adultery "to remarry any person whatsoever" but the innocent party might make another marriage "in like manner as if the party convicted was actually dead." Under the terms of the bill, the chancellor might provide for a jury trial. On March 19, 1787, Governor George Clinton, Chief Justice Richard Morris, and Justice John S. Hobart, members of the council of revision, objected to the bill "as inconsistent with the public good," because of its prohibition on the remarriage of the adulterous party. The realistic view of the council was rejected by the legislature which overrode the council's veto by a vote of 38 to 16 in the assembly and 10 to 4 in the senate. Not until 1879, was the prohibition against remarriage by the guilty party relaxed so as to permit the guilty spouse to remarry if the court modified its decree. The power to grant divorces was transferred from the legislature to the Court of Chancery by Chapter 69 of the Laws of 1787, in which the preamble recited that it was thought "more advisable for the legislature to make some general provision in such cases than to afford relief to individuals upon their partial representations, without a just and constitutional trial of the facts. The Council of Revision regarded the latter proviso as unrealistic and too harsh, but the legislature, aware that legislative divorce also was obtainable, overrode the veto. Until early in this century, when the state constitution was amended, legislative divorces were granted, sometimes on grounds other than adultery. In effect, New York made parliamentary divorce the model for judicial divorce, while legislative divorce on grounds other than adultery reflected the grounds for judicial divorce in other jurisdictions. The 1787 law, however, instead of following precedent or the lead of Protestant reformers in countries other than England, accepted the rule of parliamentary divorce. Reaction against the limitation of judicial divorce to the ground of adultery, while other states broadened their grounds, set in almost immediately in New York. Chancellor Kent, while objecting to legislative divorce, also decried migratory divorce. Nevertheless, the nineteenth century saw New Yorkers in increasing numbers resorting to migratory divorce since probably one-third to one-half of the total number of New York marriages dissolved each year were dissolved out of state. It also has been estimated that thirty-five per cent of divorces for New Yorkers were migratory divorces. Various states enjoyed popularity as divorce havens depending upon both grounds and residence requirements. Omnibus grounds plus short residence requirements accounted for their popularity. Later, other jurisdictions began to compete. Rhode Island, Iowa, the District of Columbia, Utah, and the Dakotas, enjoyed a substantial interstate trade in divorce, but after 1908 for several years only Idaho, Nebraska, Nevada, and Texas had short residence requirements. Since the 1930's, Arkansas, Idaho, Florida, and Wyoming and especially Nevada, have been the leading specialists in migratory divorce. In the 1950's Alabama became, and remained for a while, the favorite due to its residence requirements."Quickie Divorce" Scandal in Alabama, The Bench and Bar Act When the Legislature became Stymied, published in 1964 by the American Bar Association. At its peak in 1960, Alabama granted 17,328 divorces, (many of which were to New Yorkers), compared with 9,724 in Nevada. During the twenties many Americans were divorced in France and Havana and after that the Virgin Islands and Mexico enjoyed considerable popularity. It is noteworthy that the divorce "mill" in Paris was created by American lawyers to cater to wealthy New Yorkers and clients from other states, and that the 'mill" collapsed after it became extremely difficult to get Paris courts to pass upon the American cases. Havana is also said to have been a wealthy divorce resort during the 1930's because only thirty days' residence was required. A few of the Mexican states became divorce havens after the Mexican constitution of 1917 permitted divorce. In 1933, Chihuahua amended its divorce laws to provide some twenty grounds for divorce, jurisdiction being based upon submission or legal residence acquired by the signing of the municipal register. It is estimated that in 1955, some 4,300 Mexican divorces were granted to Americans. The first important change in New York matrimonial law occurred in 1813. That year the legislature rejected its commission's recommendation that desertion be made a ground for divorce and instead enacted a judicial separation statute for the benefit of mistreated or deserted wives, which was not extended to husbands until 1880. In 1827, the legislature rejected a committee recommendation that habitual drunkenness be made a ground for divorce. In 1830 it enacted an annulment statute authorizing annulments for non-age, bigamy, insanity, fraud or force, and physical incapacity. As early as 1869 and 1970, the New York Times campaigned against fraud, corruption, and divorce rings in New York City. In 1934, the New York Mirror exposed the "unknown blonde" who had been the co-respondent in over a hundred divorce cases and during the daytime was employed as a legal secretary. Between 1900 and 1933, numerous bills were introduced to reform New York matrimonial law but the only significant enactment was the "Enoch Arden" act of 1922, authorizing decrees of presumed death where a spouse had not been heard of for five years. During the 1930's, Judge Cohalan's determined fight against collusive divorce actions was widely publicized in the New York press. It had been common knowledge for several years that the situation in New York had resulted in the appearance of a new remunerative occupation -- that of the professional co-respondent. These conditions were brought to public attention on November 30, 1948, when New York District Attorney Frank S. Hogan announced the arrest of members of a "divorce ring' on charges of perjury and subornation of perjury." All in all, the number of decrees dropped about one-third in New York City, but only one-tenth in the upstate counties." The investigation confirmed what had long been suspected, namely, that fraud, perjury, and collusion were rampant in all types of matrimonial actions -- including even those based on the so-called Enoch Arden Law. Between 1949 and 1956, Assemblywoman Janet Hill Gordon waged a continuous fight for the creation of a legislative commission to study the divorce laws, but when the commission was created in 1956 its mandate was circumscribed and it had no authority to make recommendations relating to grounds for divorce. Throughout this century, spokesmen for the New York State Catholic Welfare Conference, until the enactment of the Divorce Reform Law in 1966, succeeded in blocking divorce reform, and, usually, when the matter was at issue before the legislature, a majority of Democrats and a minority of Republicans have voted against reform, with most of the support for reform coming from up-state Republicans. The 1965 Court of Appeals decision in Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel, made obvious the built-in discriminations of the divorce law of New York, including its policy of recognizing bilateral out-of-state divorces, and became a major factor in achieving divorce reform in 1966. The 1966 Divorce Reform Law grew out of the 219 page report of the Joint Legislative Committee on Matrimonial and Family Laws, commonly called the "Wilson Committee". The Joint Committee was itself established pursuant to a joint resolution dated June 8, 1965. Besides its report, the Committee sponsored legislation which was introduced at the 1966 legislative session known as the "Wilson-Sutton Bill." Alternative legislation, know as the "Leaders Bill" was proposed by Senators Travia, Hughes, and Brydges. It differed substantially from the Wilson-Sutton measure. Thereafter, compromises were effected between the sponsors of the competing bills and the law which finally was enacted contained features taken from both bills. The crux of the compromise was acceptance of the Conciliation Bureau device and a portion of the Uniform Divorce Recognition Act in return for the new grounds without defenses. The Conciliation Bureau provision in Domestic Relations Law article 11-B was repealed in 1973 and New York's version of the Uniform Divorce Recognition Act was also repealed in 1973. The significant factors in gaining acceptance for divorce reform were the extensive hearings of the Wilson Committee and strong pubic support manifested throughout the state for divorce reform; the changes in legislative membership and the disestablishment of the establishment occasioned by the 1964 presidential election; the vocal support of liberal Catholics and leading churchmen of all faiths for reform of the old law; the detailed recommendations of bar association committees which were well reasoned and thoroughly documented; and public reaction to the economic and social discrimination between disgruntled spouses that resulted from New York's recognition of Mexican bilateral divorces secured by affluent New Yorkers, (the practical result being that although poor New Yorkers who wanted a divorce might have difficulty getting one at home). Those who could afford it readily obtained divorces in Mexico or some other convenient forum. Since all prior efforts to change New York's substantive law of divorce had met with repeated failure for over 150 years, it was the combination of the above factors that made for success in 1966. When the legislature in 1966 created additional grounds for divorce it selected from among the most popular American grounds for divorce and also considered the statute (Domestic Relations Law, 200) and case law which had evolved in New York regarding legal separation. It was logical to accept abandonment as a ground for divorce since "desertion" existed as a ground in every other state but North Carolina. In phrasing the abandonment ground the legislature omitted qualifying adjectives such as "wilful," "continued," or "obstinate," which are used in some states, and also left for judicial construction the problem of "constructive desertion." The legislature also selected "imprisonment" as a ground but instead of referring to felony conviction, or crimes involving moral turpitude, simply referred to the length of imprisonment. In the case of the new "cruel and inhuman treatment" ground, the legislature melded two different grounds for legal separation which had existed under the old law. It used a conjunctive "or" to indicate that either "physical" or "mental cruelty" could be the basis for "cruel and inhuman treatment." It was intended that conduct of the defendant which endangered the mental well being of the plaintiff so as to make it improper to continue cohabitation, as well as conduct endangering the physical well being that made it unsafe to continue cohabitation, should be a ground for divorce. "Adultery" as a divorce ground was redefined so as to include deviate sexual intercourse. In addition to the "fault" grounds for divorce, the legislative scheme was to add two "no-fault" grounds based upon separation or living apart. The legislative compromise was to accept the "no-fault" theory of separation as a ground for divorce but to add requirements which would vouch for its authenticity. The sponsors of divorce reform in 1966 made no effort to propose incompatibility as a ground for divorce in New York, although it is a ground in seven other American jurisdictions, because it was believed that it would be futile to do so. The same was true of "irremediable breakdown" which at that time had not been adopted in any jurisdiction in the Western world but later became a ground in many states. Prior experience in New York with reference to the collusion, fraud, and perjury which often accompanied the adultery ground, led a wary legislature to stipulate that the separation must be pursuant to a separation agreement or judgment of legal separation. Thus, there emerged an esoteric ground in Domestic Relations Law section 170(6), i.e., separation pursuant to a separation agreement and the so-called "conversion" ground in subsection (5). The Divorce Reform Law of 1966 became the source of controversy as adjustments were made to its new declaration of public policy. Almost from the beginning there was dispute as to whether or not the conciliation procedure was worth its cost and inconvenience. The automatic bar to alimony imposed upon a wife by Domestic Relations Law section 236[A] where she was guilty of such misconduct as would constitute grounds for legal separation or divorce, affected judicial construction of the new grounds. Before the Equitable Distribution Law of 1980, there was an improvised and delicate balance of economic justice as between husband and wife fashioned by statute and procedure. Formerly in statute and decision, the wife was favored by the imposition of a unilateral duty to support from the husband, in large measure regardless of their comparative economic circumstances. On the other hand, New York law made it difficult for that obligation to be enforced. There evolved a sense that even a poor wife deserved support and a share of the property acquired by either spouse during the marriage upon divorce unless she was egregiously unfit or guilty of heinous marital offenses. The Equitable Distribution Divorce Law of 1980 accomplished this. Where there is no contest, the statutory divorce grounds are mostly of academic interest. Statutory provisions and prior court decisions set parameters for negotiating a settlement. Statutory grounds for divorce and legal precedents have their most immediate impact in negotiation and settlement efforts of the divorce process, because bargaining leverage is very important New York where the dominant characteristic of its divorce law is that in operation it is consensual, and true no-fault divorce is unavailable. ----- Original Message ----- From: Elizabeth Martinez-Gibson To: nyc-roots@rootsweb.com ; nynassau@rootsweb.com ; nynewyor@rootsweb.com ; nyqueens@rootsweb.com ; nysuffol@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 5:08 AM Subject: [NYC-ROOTS] Divorce in the 1950s Can anyone comment on the divorce "rules" of the 1950s? I know NY had some very conservative ways of dealing with divorce issues. My grandparents were divorced in 1953 in FL. They were both from NY and lived in NY all their lives. In the divorce papers, my grandmother is listed as living in FL, grandfather in NY. What I find strange is the following: grandmother plaintiff, files divorce based on cruelty, grandfather, doesn't contest, but gets custody of a minor child. This seems odd to me that the father would get custody in the 50s, and especially if the reason for divorce was cruelty. Was "cruelty" one of the few reasons for divorce? Why would the mother not get custody? I know this is more a "history/law type of question, but it is pertinent to my genealogy studies and I thought one of you may have crossed this issue before. If anyone knows or can shed some light of divorce rules for the 50s, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Liz _________________________________________________________________ Making the world a better place one message at a time. http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_BetterPlace ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NYC-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Because of the strict divorce laws in New York, it was not uncommon for either husband or wife to get "caught" with someone else. This was usually set up in a hotel with a photographer taking pictures which were then used in the divorce case. Also, many people went to Reno where it was easy to get a divorce. Dorothy **************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com! (http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)

----- Original Message ----- . Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 3:02 PM Subject: Re: [NYQUEENS] Divorce in the 1950s In a message dated 16/07/08 15:24:57, mlomax1074@gmail.com writes: > It has been reported on this list that because of the restrictive divorce > laws in New York State in the 1940s and 1950s, spouses frequently filed > for > divorce in Florida. Does anyone know if particular cities or counties in > Florida were more popular than others? I'm trying to locate a divorce > record for a New York couple who might have divorced in Florida in the > 1940s. I'd like to identify places I should write. > > Mark Lomax > California > > The microfiche index to FL divorce records are available in several libraries in FL. I know they are in libraries in Orlando, Cocoa, and Vero Beach. A request with a name and date span should get you a result. Betty. ************** I have found marriage, divorce and death certificate information on Ancestry.com for FL..Along with cerificate #s that you can use to order the same from the State.. That was two years ago, I believe.... Ted

It has been reported on this list that because of the restrictive divorce laws in New York State in the 1940s and 1950s, spouses frequently filed for divorce in Florida. Does anyone know if particular cities or counties in Florida were more popular than others? I'm trying to locate a divorce record for a New York couple who might have divorced in Florida in the 1940s. I'd like to identify places I should write. Mark Lomax California

There were only certain grounds you could file on, and perhaps, if it was worked out that your grandfather got custody, other things were worked out as well. maybe something along the lines of "You can have her, but I will have my day in court defaming you." One never knows, but I think it's possible. Theresa > [Original Message] > From: Janet Truncali <truncali@warwick.net> > To: <nynewyor@rootsweb.com> > Date: 7/16/2008 8:03:59 AM > Subject: Re: [NYNEWYOR] Divorce in the 1950s > > Hi, > My pleasure. > Janet > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Elizabeth Martinez-Gibson" <cosette.58@hotmail.com> > To: <nynewyor@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 7:56 AM > Subject: Re: [NYNEWYOR] Divorce in the 1950s > > > > Thanks Janet. This could be. According to my mother, my grandmother was an > > alcoholic. I was just puzzled that the divorce papers say that my > > grandmother filed based on "cruelty". My mother's stories always painted > > her Dad as a very good man, while her mother would beat her. > > > > Thanks for you help. > > > > > > > >> From: truncali@warwick.net> To: nynewyor@rootsweb.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jul > >> 2008 08:34:47 -0400> Subject: Re: [NYNEWYOR] Divorce in the 1950s> > Hi,> > >> I could be wrong, but if memory serves, I think that if adultery or > > >> abandonment was found that the mother would not get custody.> > >> Janet> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Elizabeth Martinez-Gibson" > >> <cosette.58@hotmail.com>> To: <nyc-roots@rootsweb.com>; > >> <nynassau@rootsweb.com>; > <nynewyor@rootsweb.com>; > >> <nyqueens@rootsweb.com>; <nysuffol@rootsweb.com>> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, > >> 2008 8:08 AM> Subject: [NYNEWYOR] Divorce in the 1950s> > > > Can anyone > >> comment on the divorce "rules" of the 1950s? I know NY had some > > very > >> conservative ways of dealing with divorce issues.> >> > My grandparents > >> were divorced in 1953 in FL. They were both from NY and > > lived in NY > >> all their lives. In the divorce papers, my grandmother is > > listed as > >> living in FL, grandfather in NY.> >> > What I find strange is the > >> following: grandmother pla! > > intiff, files divorce > > based on cruelty, grandfather, doesn't contest, > > but gets custody of a > > minor child. This seems odd to me that the > > father would get custody in the > > 50s, and especially if the reason for > > divorce was cruelty. Was "cruelty" > > one of the few reasons for divorce? > > Why would the mother not get custody?> >> > I know this is more a > > "history/law type of question, but it is pertinent > > to my genealogy > > studies and I thought one of you may have crossed this > > issue before.> > > > If anyone knows or can shed some light of divorce rules for the 50s, I'd > > > > appreciate it.> >> > Thanks,> >> > Liz> > > > _________________________________________________________________> > > > Making the world a better place one message at a time.> > > > http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_BetterPlace> > Jim > > Garrity, List Administrator> > jimgarrity@earthlink.net> > > > -------------------------------> > To unsubscribe from the list, please > > send an email to > > NYNEWYOR-requ! > > est@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in > > the subject and the body of the message> > > > > Jim Garrity, List > > Administrator> jimgarrity@earthlink.net> -------------------------------> > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > NYNEWYOR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Stay in touch when you're away with Windows Live Messenger. > > http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_messeng er2_072008 > > Jim Garrity, List Administrator > > jimgarrity@earthlink.net > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > NYNEWYOR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > Jim Garrity, List Administrator > jimgarrity@earthlink.net > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NYNEWYOR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Happy to be of help. There are some things we will never know or can be sure of. Elizabeth V. Cardinal evc1369@comcast.net

Hi, My pleasure. Janet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elizabeth Martinez-Gibson" <cosette.58@hotmail.com> To: <nynewyor@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 7:56 AM Subject: Re: [NYNEWYOR] Divorce in the 1950s > Thanks Janet. This could be. According to my mother, my grandmother was an > alcoholic. I was just puzzled that the divorce papers say that my > grandmother filed based on "cruelty". My mother's stories always painted > her Dad as a very good man, while her mother would beat her. > > Thanks for you help. > > > >> From: truncali@warwick.net> To: nynewyor@rootsweb.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jul >> 2008 08:34:47 -0400> Subject: Re: [NYNEWYOR] Divorce in the 1950s> > Hi,> >> I could be wrong, but if memory serves, I think that if adultery or > >> abandonment was found that the mother would not get custody.> >> Janet> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Elizabeth Martinez-Gibson" >> <cosette.58@hotmail.com>> To: <nyc-roots@rootsweb.com>; >> <nynassau@rootsweb.com>; > <nynewyor@rootsweb.com>; >> <nyqueens@rootsweb.com>; <nysuffol@rootsweb.com>> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, >> 2008 8:08 AM> Subject: [NYNEWYOR] Divorce in the 1950s> > > > Can anyone >> comment on the divorce "rules" of the 1950s? I know NY had some > > very >> conservative ways of dealing with divorce issues.> >> > My grandparents >> were divorced in 1953 in FL. They were both from NY and > > lived in NY >> all their lives. In the divorce papers, my grandmother is > > listed as >> living in FL, grandfather in NY.> >> > What I find strange is the >> following: grandmother pla! > intiff, files divorce > > based on cruelty, grandfather, doesn't contest, > but gets custody of a > > minor child. This seems odd to me that the > father would get custody in the > > 50s, and especially if the reason for > divorce was cruelty. Was "cruelty" > > one of the few reasons for divorce? > Why would the mother not get custody?> >> > I know this is more a > "history/law type of question, but it is pertinent > > to my genealogy > studies and I thought one of you may have crossed this > > issue before.> > > If anyone knows or can shed some light of divorce rules for the 50s, I'd > > > appreciate it.> >> > Thanks,> >> > Liz> > > _________________________________________________________________> > > Making the world a better place one message at a time.> > > http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_BetterPlace> > Jim > Garrity, List Administrator> > jimgarrity@earthlink.net> > > -------------------------------> > To unsubscribe from the list, please > send an email to > > NYNEWYOR-requ! > est@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in > the subject and the body of the message> > > > > Jim Garrity, List > Administrator> jimgarrity@earthlink.net> -------------------------------> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > NYNEWYOR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > _________________________________________________________________ > Stay in touch when you're away with Windows Live Messenger. > http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_messenger2_072008 > Jim Garrity, List Administrator > jimgarrity@earthlink.net > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > NYNEWYOR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I was thinking that the custody was agreed upon or perhaps the child was old enough to decide. The divorce papers say that the defendant, my grandfather would get custody of the child. That's all I know. I don't know if it was agreed upon and it just appearsas such on the papers. I know they were both the biological parents of the child. I have the divorce papers, thanks to Florida's online access. Thanks for your help. > From: evc1369@comcast.net> To: nyqueens@rootsweb.com; nyc-roots@rootsweb.com; nynassau@rootsweb.com; nynewyor@rootsweb.com; nysuffol@rootsweb.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:20:55 -0400> Subject: Re: [NYNEWYOR] [NYQUEENS] Divorce in the 1950s> > As the divorce was filed and granted in Florida you need to know the laws of> Florida at that time.> > I am going to take a guess at the custody issue. If he did not contest the> divorce, custody of the minor child was probably something they agreed to> privately.> > Are you certain custody was part of the divorce and not a separate action?> > Is it possible he was the biological father of the child but she was not the> biological mother?> > Without court documents you will never know.> > Florida divorce records are public information. Some are on line.> > > Elizabeth V. Cardinal> evc1369@comcast.net> > > > > Jim Garrity, List Administrator> jimgarrity@earthlink.net> -------------------------------> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NYNEWYOR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message _________________________________________________________________ Time for vacation? WIN what you need- enter now! http://www.gowindowslive.com/summergiveaway/?ocid=tag_jlyhm

Thanks Janet. This could be. According to my mother, my grandmother was an alcoholic. I was just puzzled that the divorce papers say that my grandmother filed based on "cruelty". My mother's stories always painted her Dad as a very good man, while her mother would beat her. Thanks for you help. > From: truncali@warwick.net> To: nynewyor@rootsweb.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:34:47 -0400> Subject: Re: [NYNEWYOR] Divorce in the 1950s> > Hi,> I could be wrong, but if memory serves, I think that if adultery or > abandonment was found that the mother would not get custody.> Janet> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Elizabeth Martinez-Gibson" <cosette.58@hotmail.com>> To: <nyc-roots@rootsweb.com>; <nynassau@rootsweb.com>; > <nynewyor@rootsweb.com>; <nyqueens@rootsweb.com>; <nysuffol@rootsweb.com>> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 8:08 AM> Subject: [NYNEWYOR] Divorce in the 1950s> > > > Can anyone comment on the divorce "rules" of the 1950s? I know NY had some > > very conservative ways of dealing with divorce issues.> >> > My grandparents were divorced in 1953 in FL. They were both from NY and > > lived in NY all their lives. In the divorce papers, my grandmother is > > listed as living in FL, grandfather in NY.> >> > What I find strange is the following: grandmother plaintiff, files divorce > > based on cruelty, grandfather, doesn't contest, but gets custody of a > > minor child. This seems odd to me that the father would get custody in the > > 50s, and especially if the reason for divorce was cruelty. Was "cruelty" > > one of the few reasons for divorce? Why would the mother not get custody?> >> > I know this is more a "history/law type of question, but it is pertinent > > to my genealogy studies and I thought one of you may have crossed this > > issue before.> > If anyone knows or can shed some light of divorce rules for the 50s, I'd > > appreciate it.> >> > Thanks,> >> > Liz> > _________________________________________________________________> > Making the world a better place one message at a time.> > http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_BetterPlace> > Jim Garrity, List Administrator> > jimgarrity@earthlink.net> > -------------------------------> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > NYNEWYOR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message> > > > > Jim Garrity, List Administrator> jimgarrity@earthlink.net> -------------------------------> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NYNEWYOR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message _________________________________________________________________ Stay in touch when you're away with Windows Live Messenger. http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_messenger2_072008

Thanks to all of you who shed some light on the issue of divorce in the 1950s. Liz _________________________________________________________________ With Windows Live for mobile, your contacts travel with you. http://www.windowslive.com/mobile/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_mobile_072008

I think you are wrong. My husbands grandmother filed for divorce in NY and it was uncontested. She had custody of their three children. Elizabeth V. Cardinal evc1369@comcast.net

Hi, I could be wrong, but if memory serves, I think that if adultery or abandonment was found that the mother would not get custody. Janet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elizabeth Martinez-Gibson" <cosette.58@hotmail.com> To: <nyc-roots@rootsweb.com>; <nynassau@rootsweb.com>; <nynewyor@rootsweb.com>; <nyqueens@rootsweb.com>; <nysuffol@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 8:08 AM Subject: [NYNEWYOR] Divorce in the 1950s > Can anyone comment on the divorce "rules" of the 1950s? I know NY had some > very conservative ways of dealing with divorce issues. > > My grandparents were divorced in 1953 in FL. They were both from NY and > lived in NY all their lives. In the divorce papers, my grandmother is > listed as living in FL, grandfather in NY. > > What I find strange is the following: grandmother plaintiff, files divorce > based on cruelty, grandfather, doesn't contest, but gets custody of a > minor child. This seems odd to me that the father would get custody in the > 50s, and especially if the reason for divorce was cruelty. Was "cruelty" > one of the few reasons for divorce? Why would the mother not get custody? > > I know this is more a "history/law type of question, but it is pertinent > to my genealogy studies and I thought one of you may have crossed this > issue before. > If anyone knows or can shed some light of divorce rules for the 50s, I'd > appreciate it. > > Thanks, > > Liz > _________________________________________________________________ > Making the world a better place one message at a time. > http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_BetterPlace > Jim Garrity, List Administrator > jimgarrity@earthlink.net > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > NYNEWYOR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

As the divorce was filed and granted in Florida you need to know the laws of Florida at that time. I am going to take a guess at the custody issue. If he did not contest the divorce, custody of the minor child was probably something they agreed to privately. Are you certain custody was part of the divorce and not a separate action? Is it possible he was the biological father of the child but she was not the biological mother? Without court documents you will never know. Florida divorce records are public information. Some are on line. Elizabeth V. Cardinal evc1369@comcast.net

Can anyone comment on the divorce "rules" of the 1950s? I know NY had some very conservative ways of dealing with divorce issues. My grandparents were divorced in 1953 in FL. They were both from NY and lived in NY all their lives. In the divorce papers, my grandmother is listed as living in FL, grandfather in NY. What I find strange is the following: grandmother plaintiff, files divorce based on cruelty, grandfather, doesn't contest, but gets custody of a minor child. This seems odd to me that the father would get custody in the 50s, and especially if the reason for divorce was cruelty. Was "cruelty" one of the few reasons for divorce? Why would the mother not get custody? I know this is more a "history/law type of question, but it is pertinent to my genealogy studies and I thought one of you may have crossed this issue before. If anyone knows or can shed some light of divorce rules for the 50s, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Liz _________________________________________________________________ Making the world a better place one message at a time. http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_BetterPlace

My problem is that I have no name for the one brother who may be alive. The last name is Hein. I am assuming he was born in or near Hempstead NY, since that is where they lived for quite some time. I have none of this information. I am assuming he was born somewhere around 1935. The reason I assume this is because I found my grandparent's divorce record ,which indicates there was a minor child. This was in 1953, so I am assuming he would have to be under 18 yrs. of age. I am also assuming this sibling is male because my mother said she had two brothers. Now,the other brother, who died in 1978 was Richard Frederick Hein. He was born in 1933. My mother was born in 1930, she was the oldest based on the fact her parents married in 1928 and the 1930 census only lists her. Richard was in the Korean War and he was wounded twice, according to Ancestr.com records. He is buried in the L.I. National Cemetery. I've tried getting info from them, but all they gave me was the name of the funerl home. The owner of the funeral home would not give me any info because he said there was no obituary, after awhile, he did tell me that Richard was married. So, I can only hope that I might find Richard's wife, who may be able to tell me something. BUT Richard died at age 45, so his wife may have remarried. If you can give me any advice on how to find this younger brother (if he is still alive) without his first name, I would be grateful. Thanks, Liz > From: Rdpiet@aol.com> Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:20:20 -0400> To: nyqueens@rootsweb.com; nyc-roots@rootsweb.com; nynassau@rootsweb.com; nynewyor@rootsweb.com; nysuffol@rootsweb.com> Subject: Re: [NYNEWYOR] [NYQUEENS] Advice/Help> > YOu have listed four surnames and no details. If you are seeking > yours mother's brother who may still be alive, what is his name > and when and where was he born ??> > > I am up against a brick wall and hope someone may be able to give me advice. > I am trying to find current family so I can get answers to my mother's family. > My mother (deceased) was estranged from her family, so I never knew anything > about them except what she told me. Most of what she told me was not true. > This I found out after her passing, when I decided to research her family. All I > ever had was her birth date and place and her parent's names. From that,I > found her parent's marriage certificate and it opened many doors. I have been able > to get a great amount of information on her Dayton line (descendants of Ralph > Dayton); some, but little information on her Dewar line, which led me to > research the name Albertson; and a bit more on her Hein/Heine line, which led to > research the Berger line.> One thing my mother did tell me...there were two "step brothers". It turns > out these were not "stepbrothers", they were her brothers. I have managed to > find out the name,date of birth and death of one of her brothers by getting a > copy of my grandfather's death certificate, where he signed. I found his military > record and where he is buried. There are no obituaries: not for my > grandfather, not for my uncle. I have contacted the funeral homes...no obituaries. The > funeral director was not willing to give me any information. The cemetery was > only willing to tell me where he died. Since it has been 50 yrs. since my > uncle's birth and he is deceased, I can get a birth certificate (this is my next > step). My dilemma...how can I get my uncle's death certificate? This would give > me at least one more name to search (maybe...if his wife signed the death > certificate, she may have remarried, since he died at age 45). I am not a direct > descendant, so getting this is next to impossible. How !> does one find living family w/o hiring a private investigator? I would love > to find my mother's youngest brother,if he is still alive and any of their > children. They may be able to give me answers to family that I have no way of > finding out. Is there any way I can get more recent information by doing my own > research? I love doing my family research and I would love to connect with my > lost family. Is there any hope? I appreciate your suggestions.> > > > > > **************> Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music > scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!> > (http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)> Jim Garrity, List Administrator> jimgarrity@earthlink.net> -------------------------------> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NYNEWYOR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message _________________________________________________________________ The i’m Talkaton. Can 30-days of conversation change the world? http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_ChangeWorld

Try genealogybank.com for a month. It is amazing what you can turn up on a family....I found a notice of a birthday party in a local society column for one of my relatives in NJ, lots of advertisements for an 18th century NYC business my family ran, even an ad for a runaway slave in NYC! I think you can still do a one month trial for $19.95 -- I tried it, cancelled it without problem and then joined again, now for a year, because I found so much information....For $19.95, you can skip lunch out for a day! Well worth the money. You might get lucky and find something on your living uncle's family. YOu can search nationwide, or just by state. Pamela MYER Sackett - Researching MEYER/MYER in NYC Lower Manhattan, COE in Orange Co., NY, DELAMATER/LAMATER in NYC. ________________________________ From: nyc-roots-bounces@rootsweb.com on behalf of Elizabeth Martinez-Gibson Sent: Sat 7/12/2008 11:58 AM To: nyc-roots@rootsweb.com; nynassau@rootsweb.com; nynewyor@rootsweb.com; nyqueens@rootsweb.com; nysuffol@rootsweb.com Subject: [NYC-ROOTS] Advice/Help I am up against a brick wall and hope someone may be able to give me advice. I am trying to find current family so I can get answers to my mother's family. My mother (deceased) was estranged from her family, so I never knew anything about them except what she told me. Most of what she told me was not true. This I found out after her passing, when I decided to research her family. All I ever had was her birth date and place and her parent's names. From that,I found her parent's marriage certificate and it opened many doors. I have been able to get a great amount of information on her Dayton line (descendants of Ralph Dayton); some, but little information on her Dewar line, which led me to research the name Albertson; and a bit more on her Hein/Heine line, which led to research the Berger line. One thing my mother did tell me...there were two "step brothers". It turns out these were not "stepbrothers", they were her brothers. I have managed to find out the name,date of birth and death of one of her brothers by getting a copy of my grandfather's death certificate, where he signed. I found his military record and where he is buried. There are no obituaries: not for my grandfather, not for my uncle. I have contacted the funeral homes...no obituaries. The funeral director was not willing to give me any information. The cemetery was only willing to tell me where he died. Since it has been 50 yrs. since my uncle's birth and he is deceased, I can get a birth certificate (this is my next step). My dilemma...how can I get my uncle's death certificate? This would give me at least one more name to search (maybe...if his wife signed the death certificate, she may have remarried, since he died at age 45). I am not a direct descendant, so getting this is next to impossible. How ! does one find living family w/o hiring a private investigator? I would love to find my mother's youngest brother,if he is still alive and any of their children. They may be able to give me answers to family that I have no way of finding out. Is there any way I can get more recent information by doing my own research? I love doing my family research and I would love to connect with my lost family. Is there any hope? I appreciate your suggestions. Liz _________________________________________________________________ Making the world a better place one message at a time. http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_BetterPlace ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NYC-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I want to thank everyone on this list for their help. I tried to thank each person separately but in case I missed anyone, thank you all. Janet **************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com! (http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)

http://www.odmp.org/officer/2284-special-agent-joseph-j.-brock Special Agent Joseph J. Brock United States Department of Justice - Federal Bureau of Investigation U.S. Government End of Watch: Saturday, July 26, 1952 Biographical Info Age: 44 Tour of Duty: 11 years Badge Number: Not available Incident Details Cause of Death: Gunfire Date of Incident: Saturday, July 26, 1952 Incident Location: New York Weapon Used: Handgun Suspect Info: Executed in 1954 Agent Brock was shot and killed in New York City, New York, by a fugitive on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list. Agents had information that the suspect would be at a hotel that evening. They observed the man in the lobby on the phone and then enter an elevator to the ninth floor. The agents decided to wait for him to return to the lobby in order to make an arrest. Agent Brock took a position near a stairwell. Instead of taking the elevator back down, the suspect took the stairs that Agent Brock was positioned in. He shot Agent Brock twice in the chest and then took his gun. He entered the lobby and engaged the other agents in a shootout before being wounded. He was convicted of Agent Brock's murder and executed at Sing Sing Prison, in New York, on August 12, 1954. Agent Brock had been with the agency for eleven years. ----- Original Message ----- From: Wstjs@aol.com To: nynewyor@rootsweb.com Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 9:21 PM Subject: [NYNEWYOR] obituary for Joseph J. Brock Hi, I am new to this list and new to searching records in New York City. Could someone please tell me how I can obtain an obituary for Joseph J. Brock who died as the result of a gun shot wound from a criminal in the lobby of the Congress Hotel, New York City on July 26, 1952. He was DOA at Roosevelt Hospital. His home was in Jackson Height, Queens. He was an FBI special agent. Thank you, Janet in Kansas City, MO **************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com! (http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112) Jim Garrity, List Administrator jimgarrity@earthlink.net ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NYNEWYOR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message