Billet v. Billet

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Billet v. Billet

50 A.D.2d 525, 375 N.Y.S.2d 7, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12220

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

DecidedNovember 6, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.2d 525 (Billet v. Billet) 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

Billet v. Billet, 50 A.D.2d 525, 375 N.Y.S.2d 7, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12220 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on August 1, 1975, awarding plaintiff temporary alimony and child support in the sum of $550 a week, unanimously modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of reducing such award to $400 per week, and, as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs. While the parties have succeeded, by means of their conjectural and conflicting affidavits, in obliterating any possible clear view of their economic assets and needs, it does appear that plaintiff possesses valuable real estate holdings which throw off a steady income, holds two master’s degrees and is an analyst in training. Under these circumstances we conclude that the award below was excessive and that a reduction, as above indicated, is warranted. Concur — Murphy, J. P., Lupiano, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on August 1, 1975, awarding plaintiff temporary alimony and child support in the sum of $550 a week, unanimously modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of reducing such award to $400 per week, and, as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs. While the parties have succeeded, by means of their conjectural and conflicting affidavits, in obliterating any possible clear view of their economic assets and needs, it does appear that plaintiff possesses valuable real estate holdings which throw off a steady income, holds two master’s degrees and is an analyst in training. Under these circumstances we conclude that the award below was excessive and that a reduction, as above indicated, is warranted. Concur — Murphy, J. P., Lupiano, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.2d 525, 375 N.Y.S.2d 7, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/billet-v-billet-nyappdiv-1975.