DiGiorgi v. DiGiorgi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DiGiorgi v. DiGiorgi

26 A.D.3d 405, 808 N.Y.S.2d 903

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.3d 405 (DiGiorgi v. DiGiorgi) 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

DiGiorgi v. DiGiorgi, 26 A.D.3d 405, 808 N.Y.S.2d 903 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered July 29, 2003, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated December 22, 2004, as, without a hearing, granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to increase visitation with her children.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing and a new determination.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court should have held a hearing before deciding the subject branch of the defendant’s motion. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Mastro and Lifson, 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 parties were divorced by judgment entered July 29, 2003, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated December 22, 2004, as, without a hearing, granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to increase visitation with her children.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing and a new determination.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court should have held a hearing before deciding the subject branch of the defendant’s motion. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.3d 405, 808 N.Y.S.2d 903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/digiorgi-v-digiorgi-nyappdiv-2006.