Berger v. Berger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Berger v. Berger

225 A.D.2d 419, 640 N.Y.2d 16, 640 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2715

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

DecidedMarch 19, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 225 A.D.2d 419 (Berger v. Berger) 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

Berger v. Berger, 225 A.D.2d 419, 640 N.Y.2d 16, 640 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2715 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant’s claim of a substantial change in circumstances being unsupported by any evidence, except a letter from the New Jersey welfare authorities notifying him of a contemplated rate reduction in the sums payable to his business operations, which communication was available to him, but unsubmitted on the original pendente lite motion. Clearly this is insufficient. We also note defendant failed to appeal from the original order, and in support of his cross motion failed to provide either an adequate net worth statement or a current tax return. Under the circumstances, the IAS Court properly advised him that his remedy for any inequities in the temporary award is a speedy trial (Sayer v Sayer, 130 AD2d 407). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Tom, JJ.

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

Defendant’s claim of a substantial change in circumstances being unsupported by any evidence, except a letter from the New Jersey welfare authorities notifying him of a contemplated rate reduction in the sums payable to his business operations, which communication was available to him, but unsubmitted on the original pendente lite motion. Clearly this is insufficient. We also note defendant failed to appeal from the original order, and in support of his cross motion failed to provide either an adequate net worth statement or a current tax return. Under the circumstances, the IAS Court properly advised him that his remedy for any inequities in the temporary award is a speedy trial (Sayer v Sayer, 130 AD2d 407). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 419, 640 N.Y.2d 16, 640 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berger-v-berger-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack