Costalos v. Costalos

New York Supreme Court

Costalos v. Costalos

18 Misc. 2d 946, 189 N.Y.S.2d 424, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2268

DecidedJanuary 3, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 18 Misc. 2d 946 (Costalos v. Costalos) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Costalos v. Costalos, 18 Misc. 2d 946, 189 N.Y.S.2d 424, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2268 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Jacob Markowitz, J.

Motion to punish for contempt is granted. Defendant is adjudged in contempt and fined the sum of $325 for arrears in temporary alimony and counsel fees. He may purge himself of the contempt by paying the fine in the following installments: $200 within 15 days after service of a copy of the order to be settled herein and $125 within 15 days thereafter. A copy of the order awarding alimony was served on defendant’s attorney and defendant obviously had knowledge of the-terms of the order inasmuch as he applied for a modification of that order by a motion returnable on November 3, 1955. Despite the fact that he was not personally served with a copy [947]*947of the order fixing temporary alimony, his knowledge of the terms of the order and the fact it was served on his attorney are sufficient to hold him in contempt (Bishock v. Bishock, 280 App. Div. 830).

Settle order.

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

Jacob Markowitz, J.

Motion to punish for contempt is granted. Defendant is adjudged in contempt and fined the sum of $325 for arrears in temporary alimony and counsel fees. He may purge himself of the contempt by paying the fine in the following installments: $200 within 15 days after service of a copy of the order to be settled herein and $125 within 15 days thereafter. A copy of the order awarding alimony was served on defendant’s attorney and defendant obviously had knowledge of the-terms of the order inasmuch as he applied for a modification of that order by a motion returnable on November 3, 1955. Despite the fact that he was not personally served with a copy [947]*947of the order fixing temporary alimony, his knowledge of the terms of the order and the fact it was served on his attorney are sufficient to hold him in contempt (Bishock v. Bishock, 280 App. Div. 830).

Settle order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 Misc. 2d 946, 189 N.Y.S.2d 424, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/costalos-v-costalos-nysupct-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack