Di Leo v. Shepherd

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Di Leo v. Shepherd

18 A.D.2d 836, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4524

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

DecidedJanuary 28, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.2d 836 (Di Leo v. Shepherd) 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

Di Leo v. Shepherd, 18 A.D.2d 836, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4524 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by a former wife against her former husband, in which she alleged three causes of action: (1) to enforce a separation agreement between them insofar as it requires him to support their four children in an amount “ commensurate ” with his earnings and income; (2) to declare the quantum of such amount; and (3) to compel defendant to constitute her the irrevocable beneficiaj-y for the benefit of said children of two certain life insurance policies, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated January 24, 1962, which: (a) denied her motion for summary judgment striking out the defendant’s answer; and (b) granted such judgment to the defendant, dismissing each cause of action alleged in the complaint (Rules Civ. Prae., rule lip). Order affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by a former wife against her former husband, in which she alleged three causes of action: (1) to enforce a separation agreement between them insofar as it requires him to support their four children in an amount “ commensurate ” with his earnings and income; (2) to declare the quantum of such amount; and (3) to compel defendant to constitute her the irrevocable beneficiaj-y for the benefit of said children of two certain life insurance policies, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated January 24, 1962, which: (a) denied her motion for summary judgment striking out the defendant’s answer; and (b) granted such judgment to the defendant, dismissing each cause of action alleged in the complaint (Rules Civ. Prae., rule lip). Order affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 836, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/di-leo-v-shepherd-nyappdiv-1963.