
    John J. Holmer, Respondent, v. Elizabeth Holmer, Appellant. Elizabeth Holmer, Appellant, v. John J. Holmer, Respondent.
    (Argued April 10, 1930;
    decided May 6, 1930.)
    
      Charles P. Robinson for appellant.
    The findings of fact are insufficient to support the conclusions of law that the husband is entitled to a separation from his wife and that he be not required to support ber. (Mirizio v. Mirizio, 242 N. Y. 74; Avarett v. Avarett, 189 App. Div. 250; 232 N. Y. 519; McNulty v. McNulty, 119 App. Div. 150; Wawhinney v. Millbrook Woolen Mills, 231 N. Y. 290.)
    No appearance for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The findings in action No. 1, so far as they are supported by the evidence, do not sustain the conclusion of law that plaintiff therein is entitled to a judgment of separation against the defendant. It follows that in action No. 2 defendant was not justified in abandoning plaintiff and !that plaintiff is entitled to a judgment of separation and separate maintenance against the defendant (New York Const, art. VI, § 8).

In action No. 1, the judgment should be reversed and the compláint dismissed, with costs in all courts.

In action No. 2, judgment of separation and separate maintenance and support ordered in favor of the plaintiff, with leave to apply without notice to the Special Term for directions for the support of the plaintiff.

Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Lehman, Kellogg, O’Brien and Hubbs, JJ., concur.

Judgments accordingly.  