Ehrenzweig v. Ehrenzweig

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ehrenzweig v. Ehrenzweig

72 A.D.2d 762, 421 N.Y.S.2d 381, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13994

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 72 A.D.2d 762 (Ehrenzweig v. Ehrenzweig) 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

Ehrenzweig v. Ehrenzweig, 72 A.D.2d 762, 421 N.Y.S.2d 381, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13994 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 28, -1978, which denied her motion to reopen and continue the trial of the defendant husband’s cross motion for a downward modification of the alimony and child support provisions of the divorce decree. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Motion to strike certain matter from the record on appeal, renewed upon argument of the appeal, denied. Examination of the record indicates that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen the trial, plaintiff having promised on four different occasions to have her expert witness (an accountant) present in court but each time failing to keep said promise. (See Harrington v Smithtown Gen. Hosp., 53 AD2d 685.) Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Titone and Mangano, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 28, -1978, which denied her motion to reopen and continue the trial of the defendant husband’s cross motion for a downward modification of the alimony and child support provisions of the divorce decree. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Motion to strike certain matter from the record on appeal, renewed upon argument of the appeal, denied. Examination of the record indicates that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen the trial, plaintiff having promised on four different occasions to have her expert witness (an accountant) present in court but each time failing to keep said promise. (See Harrington v Smithtown Gen. Hosp., 53 AD2d 685.) Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Titone and Mangano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.2d 762, 421 N.Y.S.2d 381, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13994, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ehrenzweig-v-ehrenzweig-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack