Barash v. Barash

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barash v. Barash

281 A.D. 973, 121 N.Y.S.2d 255, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3969

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

DecidedApril 30, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D. 973 (Barash v. Barash) 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

Barash v. Barash, 281 A.D. 973, 121 N.Y.S.2d 255, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3969 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified to the extent of directing that the adjudication that defendant be punished for contempt be held in abeyance pending a reference to the same Official Referee to whom has been referred the application by defendant for reduction of the amount of alimony, and pending the report of the Official Referee, on condition that in the meantime defendant pay $125 per week as current alimony, without prejudice to such amount as may be determined on the coming in of the Official Referee’s report, and with the further direction that both references be completed expeditiously. As so modified the order is affirmed. Settle order on notice. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Van Voorhis and Bergan, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified to the extent of directing that the adjudication that defendant be punished for contempt be held in abeyance pending a reference to the same Official Referee to whom has been referred the application by defendant for reduction of the amount of alimony, and pending the report of the Official Referee, on condition that in the meantime defendant pay $125 per week as current alimony, without prejudice to such amount as may be determined on the coming in of the Official Referee’s report, and with the further direction that both references be completed expeditiously. As so modified the order is affirmed. Settle order on notice. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Van Voorhis and Bergan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D. 973, 121 N.Y.S.2d 255, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3969, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barash-v-barash-nyappdiv-1953.