Bittson v. Bittson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bittson v. Bittson

7 A.D.2d 867, 182 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10182

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 1959

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 A.D.2d 867 (Bittson v. Bittson) 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

Bittson v. Bittson, 7 A.D.2d 867, 182 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10182 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order denying, without a hearing, appellant’s application to modify a judgment of separation by eliminating the award of alimony to [868]*868respondent and to direct the custodian-receiver to pay appellant the income from certain property. Order reversed, without costs, and application remitted to the Special Term for determination after a hearing. Appellant is not prevented from applying for a reduction in alimony because of arrears. (Mandel v. Mandel, 241 App. Div. 882; Staples v. Staples, 206 App. Div. 196; Wiseman v. Wiseman, 172 Misc. 114; Schacknow v. Schacknow, 146 Misc. 6.) The questions as to the present financial status of the parties and whether there has been a change of circumstances since the entry of the judgment of separation in December, 1954 should be determined after a hearing. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order denying, without a hearing, appellant’s application to modify a judgment of separation by eliminating the award of alimony to [868]*868respondent and to direct the custodian-receiver to pay appellant the income from certain property. Order reversed, without costs, and application remitted to the Special Term for determination after a hearing. Appellant is not prevented from applying for a reduction in alimony because of arrears. (Mandel v. Mandel, 241 App. Div. 882; Staples v. Staples, 206 App. Div. 196; Wiseman v. Wiseman, 172 Misc. 114; Schacknow v. Schacknow, 146 Misc. 6.) The questions as to the present financial status of the parties and whether there has been a change of circumstances since the entry of the judgment of separation in December, 1954 should be determined after a hearing. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.2d 867, 182 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bittson-v-bittson-nyappdiv-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack