Fausto v. Fausto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fausto v. Fausto

271 A.D.2d 401, 706 N.Y.S.2d 896, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3748

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

DecidedApril 3, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 401 (Fausto v. Fausto) 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

Fausto v. Fausto, 271 A.D.2d 401, 706 N.Y.S.2d 896, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3748 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated May 7, 1998, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated October 15, 1998, as, in effect, (1) granted the plaintiff’s motion to hold him in contempt for violating provisions of the judgment of divorce, and (2) denied his cross motion to hold her in contempt of stated portions of the same judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the Supreme Court properly held him in contempt for violating provisions of the judgment of divorce (see, Goldsmith v Goldsmith, 261 AD2d 576).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan and Smith, 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 dated May 7, 1998, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated October 15, 1998, as, in effect, (1) granted the plaintiff’s motion to hold him in contempt for violating provisions of the judgment of divorce, and (2) denied his cross motion to hold her in contempt of stated portions of the same judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the Supreme Court properly held him in contempt for violating provisions of the judgment of divorce (see, Goldsmith v Goldsmith, 261 AD2d 576).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 401, 706 N.Y.S.2d 896, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fausto-v-fausto-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack