Ambrose v. Kraus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ambrose v. Kraus

256 A.D. 933, 9 N.Y.S.2d 857, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5523

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 14, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D. 933 (Ambrose v. Kraus) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ambrose v. Kraus, 256 A.D. 933, 9 N.Y.S.2d 857, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5523 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Order granting motion to punish for contempt and fining the appellant $500 for failure to pay alimony at the rate of twenty dollars a week from May, 1926, to May, 1938, but permitting him to purge himself of contempt by paying ten dollars a week, reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and the matter remitted to the Special Term to take proof on the following: (1) Whether, subsequent to the respondent’s remarriage, the children assumed the name of their stepfather and whether they were voluntarily supported by him. (2) Whether the whereabouts of the appellant were unknown to the respondent. (3) Whether the respondent, at the time of her remarriage, told the appellant that she did not want him to visit the children and that she desired no support from him. (4) To establish the appellant’s financial situation and what amounts, if any, the appellant has given to his children. (Silkworth v. Silkworth, 255 App. Div. 226, and cases therein cited; Gewirtz v. Gewirtz, 189 id. 483 [1st Dept.]; Beeber v. Beeber, 225 id. 757.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Close, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order granting motion to punish for contempt and fining the appellant $500 for failure to pay alimony at the rate of twenty dollars a week from May, 1926, to May, 1938, but permitting him to purge himself of contempt by paying ten dollars a week, reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and the matter remitted to the Special Term to take proof on the following: (1) Whether, subsequent to the respondent’s remarriage, the children assumed the name of their stepfather and whether they were voluntarily supported by him. (2) Whether the whereabouts of the appellant were unknown to the respondent. (3) Whether the respondent, at the time of her remarriage, told the appellant that she did not want him to visit the children and that she desired no support from him. (4) To establish the appellant’s financial situation and what amounts, if any, the appellant has given to his children. (Silkworth v. Silkworth, 255 App. Div. 226, and cases therein cited; Gewirtz v. Gewirtz, 189 id. 483 [1st Dept.]; Beeber v. Beeber, 225 id. 757.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D. 933, 9 N.Y.S.2d 857, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ambrose-v-kraus-nyappdiv-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack