Cytowics v. Cytowics

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cytowics v. Cytowics

114 A.D.2d 836, 495 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53846

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

DecidedNovember 4, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 114 A.D.2d 836 (Cytowics v. Cytowics) 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

Cytowics v. Cytowics, 114 A.D.2d 836, 495 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53846 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action in which the plaintiff wife has been granted a judgment of divorce that incorporated, but did not merge, a stipulation of the parties with respect, inter alia, to the payment of child support and alimony, the defendant husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Felig, J.), dated October 30, 1984, which denied, without a hearing, his motion to modify the judgment by reducing and limiting the alimony and child support provisions thereof.

Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Defendant has failed to set forth sufficient facts to justify the granting of any relief. Lazer, J. P., Thompson, O’Connor, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

—In a matrimonial action in which the plaintiff wife has been granted a judgment of divorce that incorporated, but did not merge, a stipulation of the parties with respect, inter alia, to the payment of child support and alimony, the defendant husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Felig, J.), dated October 30, 1984, which denied, without a hearing, his motion to modify the judgment by reducing and limiting the alimony and child support provisions thereof.

Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Defendant has failed to set forth sufficient facts to justify the granting of any relief. Lazer, J. P., Thompson, O’Connor, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.2d 836, 495 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cytowics-v-cytowics-nyappdiv-1985.