Barry v. Barry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barry v. Barry

32 A.D.2d 540, 299 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4240

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

DecidedApril 14, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 32 A.D.2d 540 (Barry v. Barry) 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

Barry v. Barry, 32 A.D.2d 540, 299 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4240 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Orange County, dated [541]*541October 8, 1968, which directed, appellant to pay $50 per week for the support of the parties’ child. Order reversed, on the law and on the facts, without costs, and proceeding remanded to the court below for a further hearing at which proof shall be adduced consistent herewith. Appellant is directed to continue paying $40 per week, on account of the child’s support, in the interim, consistent with one of the conditions in the order of Mr. Justice A. David Benjamin, of this court, dated November 18, 1968. The record is deficient of any proof indicating the child’s needs. The party petitioning for support of a minor should, in the first instance, offer proof of the child’s requirements (Matter of Silvestris v. Silvestris, 24 A D 2d 247, 250). Furthermore, the summary fashion in which appellant’s visitation rights were denied requires us to direct reconsideration of that aspect of the proceeding by the Family Court. Rabin, Acting P. J., Benjamin, Munder, Martuseello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Orange County, dated [541]*541October 8, 1968, which directed, appellant to pay $50 per week for the support of the parties’ child. Order reversed, on the law and on the facts, without costs, and proceeding remanded to the court below for a further hearing at which proof shall be adduced consistent herewith. Appellant is directed to continue paying $40 per week, on account of the child’s support, in the interim, consistent with one of the conditions in the order of Mr. Justice A. David Benjamin, of this court, dated November 18, 1968. The record is deficient of any proof indicating the child’s needs. The party petitioning for support of a minor should, in the first instance, offer proof of the child’s requirements (Matter of Silvestris v. Silvestris, 24 A D 2d 247, 250). Furthermore, the summary fashion in which appellant’s visitation rights were denied requires us to direct reconsideration of that aspect of the proceeding by the Family Court. Rabin, Acting P. J., Benjamin, Munder, Martuseello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 540, 299 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barry-v-barry-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack