Dechowitz v. Dechowitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dechowitz v. Dechowitz

52 A.D.2d 573, 383 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12147

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

DecidedApril 5, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.2d 573 (Dechowitz v. Dechowitz) 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

Dechowitz v. Dechowitz, 52 A.D.2d 573, 383 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12147 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which a judgment of divorce was entered, the defendant husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 28, 1975, which, without a hearing, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion to hold him in contempt for failing to pay alimony. (Upon the return date of the motion to punish him for contempt defendant orally requested a hearing, but Special Term denied his request.) Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and matter remitted to Special Term for a [574]*574hearing as to the amounts of alimony arrears and counsel fees (see Costigan v Costigan, 7 AD2d 735; Pirrotta v Pirrotta, 42 AD2d 715). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action in which a judgment of divorce was entered, the defendant husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 28, 1975, which, without a hearing, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion to hold him in contempt for failing to pay alimony. (Upon the return date of the motion to punish him for contempt defendant orally requested a hearing, but Special Term denied his request.) Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and matter remitted to Special Term for a [574]*574hearing as to the amounts of alimony arrears and counsel fees (see Costigan v Costigan, 7 AD2d 735; Pirrotta v Pirrotta, 42 AD2d 715). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 573, 383 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dechowitz-v-dechowitz-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack