Caruana v. Klipfel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Caruana v. Klipfel

135 A.D.2d 1146, 523 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53028

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

DecidedDecember 18, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 135 A.D.2d 1146 (Caruana v. Klipfel) 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

Caruana v. Klipfel, 135 A.D.2d 1146, 523 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53028 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

— Motion for stay denied. Memorandum: This motion by defendant seeks stay of enforcement, pending appeal, of an order of Supreme Court, Erie County, directing an increase in support payments. The motion must be denied. The papers submitted to us do not include the affidavit of plaintiff which was submitted to Supreme Court and was apparently relied upon by that court in making its determination. Since defen[1147]*1147dant did not submit to Supreme Court an affidavit in response to plaintiffs motion, and did not seek a further opportunity to do so, we must assume, for purposes of this motion only, that plaintiffs uncontested assertions in her moving papers were sufficient to justify the relief granted. Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

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

— Motion for stay denied. Memorandum: This motion by defendant seeks stay of enforcement, pending appeal, of an order of Supreme Court, Erie County, directing an increase in support payments. The motion must be denied. The papers submitted to us do not include the affidavit of plaintiff which was submitted to Supreme Court and was apparently relied upon by that court in making its determination. Since defen[1147]*1147dant did not submit to Supreme Court an affidavit in response to plaintiffs motion, and did not seek a further opportunity to do so, we must assume, for purposes of this motion only, that plaintiffs uncontested assertions in her moving papers were sufficient to justify the relief granted. Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 A.D.2d 1146, 523 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caruana-v-klipfel-nyappdiv-1987.