Boyd v. Boyd

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Boyd v. Boyd

40 A.D.2d 588, 334 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4095

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

DecidedJuly 6, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 40 A.D.2d 588 (Boyd v. Boyd) 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

Boyd v. Boyd, 40 A.D.2d 588, 334 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4095 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Appellant.—Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Hemorandum: Since the decree df divorce rendered by Supreme Court did not proscribe- the exercise of jurisdiction by Family Court, the latter court had authority to entertain the application for enforcement and modification of the support provision of the decree (Family Ct. Act, § 461, subd. [b]; § 466, subd. [c]; Desroches v. Desroches, 23 A D 2d 903). The proof before it, showing that appellant had incurred obligations for non-necessities since his remarriage, fully justified the court’s refusal to reduce the already minimal support provisions for the children of his first marriage. (Appeal from order of Wayne County Family Court directing payments for support and counsel fees.) Present—Del Vecchio, J. P., Witmer, Gabrielli, Houle and Cardamone, JJ.

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

Appellant.—Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Hemorandum: Since the decree df divorce rendered by Supreme Court did not proscribe- the exercise of jurisdiction by Family Court, the latter court had authority to entertain the application for enforcement and modification of the support provision of the decree (Family Ct. Act, § 461, subd. [b]; § 466, subd. [c]; Desroches v. Desroches, 23 A D 2d 903). The proof before it, showing that appellant had incurred obligations for non-necessities since his remarriage, fully justified the court’s refusal to reduce the already minimal support provisions for the children of his first marriage. (Appeal from order of Wayne County Family Court directing payments for support and counsel fees.) Present—Del Vecchio, J. P., Witmer, Gabrielli, Houle and Cardamone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 588, 334 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyd-v-boyd-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack