Esposito v. Esposito

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Esposito v. Esposito

30 A.D.2d 809, 293 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3512

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

DecidedJuly 1, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 809 (Esposito v. Esposito) 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

Esposito v. Esposito, 30 A.D.2d 809, 293 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3512 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from two orders of the Supreme Court, Queens County, one dated November 20, 1967, which granted plaintiff’s motion to adjudge defendant in contempt of court for failure to pay temporary alimony, and one dated February 15, 1968, which denied defendant’s motion for reargument. Appeal from order of February 15, 1968 dismissed, with costs. No appeal lies from an order denying reargument. Order of November 20, 1967, reversed, on the law dnd the facts, without costs, and plaintiff’s motion remitted to Special Term for a hearing as to defendant’s financial circumstances. In our opinion, the circumstances warrant a determination on oral proof rather than on conflicting affidavits (Abbey v. Abbey, 7 A D 2d 910; Larotondo v. Larotondo, 285 App. Div. 899). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from two orders of the Supreme Court, Queens County, one dated November 20, 1967, which granted plaintiff’s motion to adjudge defendant in contempt of court for failure to pay temporary alimony, and one dated February 15, 1968, which denied defendant’s motion for reargument. Appeal from order of February 15, 1968 dismissed, with costs. No appeal lies from an order denying reargument. Order of November 20, 1967, reversed, on the law dnd the facts, without costs, and plaintiff’s motion remitted to Special Term for a hearing as to defendant’s financial circumstances. In our opinion, the circumstances warrant a determination on oral proof rather than on conflicting affidavits (Abbey v. Abbey, 7 A D 2d 910; Larotondo v. Larotondo, 285 App. Div. 899). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 809, 293 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/esposito-v-esposito-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack