Di Pillo v. Di Pillo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Di Pillo v. Di Pillo

59 A.D.2d 927, 399 N.Y.S.2d 614, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14146

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

DecidedNovember 21, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 59 A.D.2d 927 (Di Pillo v. Di Pillo) 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 Pillo v. Di Pillo, 59 A.D.2d 927, 399 N.Y.S.2d 614, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14146 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a support proceeding pursuant to article 4 of the Family Court Act, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated May 6, 1977, which, inter alia, increased the child support payments provided for in a separation agreement dated June 23, 1970. Order modified, on the facts, by deleting from the first decretal paragraph thereof the words: "retroactive as of the date this proceeding was commenced, to wit, February 13, 1976”. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The modification of the provisions for child support reflects the court’s consideration of the best interests of the children (see Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210). However, the payment of such sums retroactively would constitute a duplicate lump-sum payment of amounts already given to the children directly by the appellant. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

In a support proceeding pursuant to article 4 of the Family Court Act, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated May 6, 1977, which, inter alia, increased the child support payments provided for in a separation agreement dated June 23, 1970. Order modified, on the facts, by deleting from the first decretal paragraph thereof the words: "retroactive as of the date this proceeding was commenced, to wit, February 13, 1976”. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The modification of the provisions for child support reflects the court’s consideration of the best interests of the children (see Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210). However, the payment of such sums retroactively would constitute a duplicate lump-sum payment of amounts already given to the children directly by the appellant. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.2d 927, 399 N.Y.S.2d 614, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/di-pillo-v-di-pillo-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack