Colangelo v. Colangelo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Colangelo v. Colangelo

54 A.D.2d 1123, 389 N.Y.S.2d 76

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 12, 1976·No. Appeal No. 2·Published

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The findings of fact made by Family Court provide a sufficient basis for its determination directing the appellant to pay to respondent, his former wife, support in the amount of $15 per week (Family Ct Act, § 412; see Matter of Brock v Brock, 33 AD2d 632). The question of support was properly referred to Family Court on the motion of the Acting Supreme Court Justice who heard the divorce action (Family Ct Act, § 464, subd [a]). We have considered appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in refusing to receive the testimony of two witnesses. In one instance the witness could add little, if anything, to the documentary proof already in evidence. In the other instance, the proffered witness was admittedly not a qualified expert on real estate values. (Appeal from order of Oneida County Family Court—support.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Cardamone, Simons and Goldman, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The findings of fact made by Family Court provide a sufficient basis for its determination directing the appellant to pay to respondent, his former wife, support in the amount of $15 per week (Family Ct Act, § 412; see Matter of Brock v Brock, 33 AD2d 632). The question of support was properly referred to Family Court on the motion of the Acting Supreme Court Justice who heard the divorce action (Family Ct Act, § 464, subd [a]). We have considered appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in refusing to receive the testimony of two witnesses. In one instance the witness could add little, if anything, to the documentary proof already in evidence. In the other instance, the proffered witness was admittedly not a qualified expert on real estate values. (Appeal from order of Oneida County Family Court—support.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Cardamone, Simons and Goldman, JJ.

Colangelo v. Colangelo, 54 A.D.2d 1123, 389 N.Y.S.2d 76 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

54 A.D.2d 1123 (Colangelo v. Colangelo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related