Emerick v. Emerick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Emerick v. Emerick

24 A.D.2d 872, 264 N.Y.S.2d 502, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3053

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 24 A.D.2d 872 (Emerick v. Emerick) 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

Emerick v. Emerick, 24 A.D.2d 872, 264 N.Y.S.2d 502, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3053 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a support proceeding by a wife under article 4 of the Family Court Act, the husband appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County, entered May 7, 1965 after a hearing, which committed him to jail for a term of six months for his failure to obey a prior order of support of said court. Order reversed on the law and the facts, without costs; and matter remitted to the Family Court, Orange County, for a new hearing and for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. In our opinion, the record does not support the determination of the Family Court, which must be based upon “competent proof”, that the husband had willfully failed to obey the court’s prior order of support (Family Ct. Act, § 454). The husband is entitled to be represented by counsel, and should be given opportunity to be heard and to present witnesses (cf. Family Ot. Act, § 433). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

—In a support proceeding by a wife under article 4 of the Family Court Act, the husband appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County, entered May 7, 1965 after a hearing, which committed him to jail for a term of six months for his failure to obey a prior order of support of said court. Order reversed on the law and the facts, without costs; and matter remitted to the Family Court, Orange County, for a new hearing and for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. In our opinion, the record does not support the determination of the Family Court, which must be based upon “competent proof”, that the husband had willfully failed to obey the court’s prior order of support (Family Ct. Act, § 454). The husband is entitled to be represented by counsel, and should be given opportunity to be heard and to present witnesses (cf. Family Ot. Act, § 433). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 872, 264 N.Y.S.2d 502, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3053, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emerick-v-emerick-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack