Antelo v. Antelo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Antelo v. Antelo

27 A.D.2d 825, 278 N.Y.S.2d 159, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4573

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

DecidedMarch 21, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 27 A.D.2d 825 (Antelo v. Antelo) 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

Antelo v. Antelo, 27 A.D.2d 825, 278 N.Y.S.2d 159, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4573 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Family Court, entered October 5, 1966, directing respondent to pay $20 weekly for the support of his son, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, without costs and without disbursements, and the matter remanded to the Family Court, New York County, for a further hearing [826]*826at which proof shall be adduced consistent with the following. While we recognize that procedure in the Family Court is to an extent informal, there was no proof adduced in the first instance of the child’s needs. The record is deficient, moreover, in failing to show the father’s changed circumstances, his assets, earnings, expenses and obligations, all necessary to reach a proper conclusion as to a fair and reasonable amount for the support of the child. The order of October 5, 1966 shall continue in effect as a temporary order of support pursuant to section 434 of the Family Court Act. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ.

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

Order of the Family Court, entered October 5, 1966, directing respondent to pay $20 weekly for the support of his son, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, without costs and without disbursements, and the matter remanded to the Family Court, New York County, for a further hearing [826]*826at which proof shall be adduced consistent with the following. While we recognize that procedure in the Family Court is to an extent informal, there was no proof adduced in the first instance of the child’s needs. The record is deficient, moreover, in failing to show the father’s changed circumstances, his assets, earnings, expenses and obligations, all necessary to reach a proper conclusion as to a fair and reasonable amount for the support of the child. The order of October 5, 1966 shall continue in effect as a temporary order of support pursuant to section 434 of the Family Court Act. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 825, 278 N.Y.S.2d 159, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/antelo-v-antelo-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack