Chase v. Chase

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chase v. Chase

153 A.D.2d 983, 546 N.Y.S.2d 981, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11724

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

DecidedSeptember 21, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 153 A.D.2d 983 (Chase v. Chase) 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

Chase v. Chase, 153 A.D.2d 983, 546 N.Y.S.2d 981, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11724 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals (1) from an order of the Family Court of Broome County (Ray, J.), entered June 17, 1986, which, inter alia, dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, for modification of a prior custody decree, and (2) from an order of said court, entered August 6, 1986, which, inter alia, directed petitioner to pay child support.

[984]*984We agree with the reasoning of Family Court as found in its written decisions. We add only that respondent’s request for counsel fees is denied. In the absence of any request before Family Court or a cross appeal, respondent inappropriately raises this issue for the first time before us (see, e.g., Matter of Van Alstyne v David Q., 92 AD2d 971, 972).

Orders affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

Appeals (1) from an order of the Family Court of Broome County (Ray, J.), entered June 17, 1986, which, inter alia, dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, for modification of a prior custody decree, and (2) from an order of said court, entered August 6, 1986, which, inter alia, directed petitioner to pay child support.

[984]*984We agree with the reasoning of Family Court as found in its written decisions. We add only that respondent’s request for counsel fees is denied. In the absence of any request before Family Court or a cross appeal, respondent inappropriately raises this issue for the first time before us (see, e.g., Matter of Van Alstyne v David Q., 92 AD2d 971, 972).

Orders affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 A.D.2d 983, 546 N.Y.S.2d 981, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chase-v-chase-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack