Eskin v. Eskin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eskin v. Eskin

26 A.D.2d 680, 272 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3635

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

DecidedJuly 6, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 680 (Eskin v. Eskin) 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

Eskin v. Eskin, 26 A.D.2d 680, 272 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3635 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a separation, the plaintiff wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered December 23, 1965, which (1) directed plaintiff to return the parties’ three infant children to defendant in this jurisdiction; (2) directed her to notify defendant of their location; (3) granted defendant reasonable visitation rights; (4) referred the issues of custody and visitation to Special Term, Part III for a hearing; and (5) relieved defendant from making alimony or support payments pursuant to a prior order of the court while the infants were not available for visitation in this jurisdiction. Order affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, upon the record before us, Special Term properly directed a return of the infants and suspended defendant’s obligation to pay alimony or support until their return (cf. Goldner v. Goldner, [681]*681284 App. Div. 961). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a separation, the plaintiff wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered December 23, 1965, which (1) directed plaintiff to return the parties’ three infant children to defendant in this jurisdiction; (2) directed her to notify defendant of their location; (3) granted defendant reasonable visitation rights; (4) referred the issues of custody and visitation to Special Term, Part III for a hearing; and (5) relieved defendant from making alimony or support payments pursuant to a prior order of the court while the infants were not available for visitation in this jurisdiction. Order affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, upon the record before us, Special Term properly directed a return of the infants and suspended defendant’s obligation to pay alimony or support until their return (cf. Goldner v. Goldner, [681]*681284 App. Div. 961). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 680, 272 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3635, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eskin-v-eskin-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack