Chalson v. Chalson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chalson v. Chalson

68 A.D.2d 809, 413 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10997

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

DecidedMarch 6, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 68 A.D.2d 809 (Chalson v. Chalson) 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

Chalson v. Chalson, 68 A.D.2d 809, 413 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10997 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered June 8, 1978, held in abeyance and the matter remanded to Special Term, Supreme Court, Bronx County, for proceedings as hereinafter set forth. The Special Term, without stating reasons therefor, disaffirmed the report of the Special Referee, which had recommended against a finding of contempt, and adjudged appellant in contempt. After the report had come in, a request was made that the amount due for arrears be "expanded” to bring it up to date; the court did so, but did not set forth how the original amount of arrearage rose, in what appears to have been a brief time, from $1,700 to $8,400. Nothing is found in the file to answer either question. The remand is for the purpose of having Special Term supply these deficiencies. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Markewich, Silverman, Lynch and Yesawich, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered June 8, 1978, held in abeyance and the matter remanded to Special Term, Supreme Court, Bronx County, for proceedings as hereinafter set forth. The Special Term, without stating reasons therefor, disaffirmed the report of the Special Referee, which had recommended against a finding of contempt, and adjudged appellant in contempt. After the report had come in, a request was made that the amount due for arrears be "expanded” to bring it up to date; the court did so, but did not set forth how the original amount of arrearage rose, in what appears to have been a brief time, from $1,700 to $8,400. Nothing is found in the file to answer either question. The remand is for the purpose of having Special Term supply these deficiencies. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Markewich, Silverman, Lynch and Yesawich, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.2d 809, 413 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10997, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chalson-v-chalson-nyappdiv-1979.