Buntzman v. Buntzman
228 A.D.2d 674, 644 N.Y.2d 986, 644 N.Y.S.2d 986, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7401
Opinion
The Family Court had jurisdiction over the instant application (see, Family Ct Act § 466). The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit (see, Matter of Cox v Cox, 181 AD2d 201, 204; Singer v Singer, 180 AD2d 725). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Buntzman v. Buntzman, 228 A.D.2d 674, 644 N.Y.2d 986, 644 N.Y.S.2d 986, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7401 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).
228 A.D.2d 674 (Buntzman v. Buntzman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Singer v. Singer
180 A.D.2d 725 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Cox v. Cox
181 A.D.2d 201 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)