Bavaro v. Bavaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bavaro v. Bavaro

202 A.D.2d 266, 609 N.Y.S.2d 784

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 202 A.D.2d 266 (Bavaro v. Bavaro) 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

Bavaro v. Bavaro, 202 A.D.2d 266, 609 N.Y.S.2d 784 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ralph Yachnin, J.), entered November 20, 1991, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiffs motion for contempt, child support and maintenance arrears, and counsel fees, and denied defendant’s cross-motion for a reduction in child support, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A new hearing regarding defendant’s request for a downward modification of his support payments and plaintiffs request to hold defendant in contempt was unnecessary in light of the trial court’s prior hearing on the issues and the lack of new facts to warrant a new hearing. We also note that a finding of contempt was warranted since defendant failed fully to purge himself as provided for in the prior order. Concur — Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ralph Yachnin, J.), entered November 20, 1991, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiffs motion for contempt, child support and maintenance arrears, and counsel fees, and denied defendant’s cross-motion for a reduction in child support, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A new hearing regarding defendant’s request for a downward modification of his support payments and plaintiffs request to hold defendant in contempt was unnecessary in light of the trial court’s prior hearing on the issues and the lack of new facts to warrant a new hearing. We also note that a finding of contempt was warranted since defendant failed fully to purge himself as provided for in the prior order. Concur — Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 266, 609 N.Y.S.2d 784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bavaro-v-bavaro-nyappdiv-1994.