Filoseta v. Filoseta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Filoseta v. Filoseta

57 A.D.2d 555, 393 N.Y.S.2d 78, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11507

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

DecidedApril 4, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.2d 555 (Filoseta v. Filoseta) 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

Filoseta v. Filoseta, 57 A.D.2d 555, 393 N.Y.S.2d 78, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11507 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a support proceeding pursuant to article 4 of the Family Court Act, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County, entered June 4, 1976, which, after a hearing, inter alia, (1) denied appellant’s application for a downward modification of support contained in a prior order of the same court, dated April 23, 1973, (2) fixed the amount of arrears and (3) imposed a sentence upon appellant for his willful failure to support petitioner, and suspended execution of the sentence upon certain conditions. Order affirmed, with costs. The evidence supports the Family Court’s findings. The refusal of the Family Court to entertain further proof after the rendition of its determination was a proper exercise of discretion. The other contentions made by appellant have been considered and found to [556]*556be without merit. Hargett, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Titone and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

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

In a support proceeding pursuant to article 4 of the Family Court Act, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County, entered June 4, 1976, which, after a hearing, inter alia, (1) denied appellant’s application for a downward modification of support contained in a prior order of the same court, dated April 23, 1973, (2) fixed the amount of arrears and (3) imposed a sentence upon appellant for his willful failure to support petitioner, and suspended execution of the sentence upon certain conditions. Order affirmed, with costs. The evidence supports the Family Court’s findings. The refusal of the Family Court to entertain further proof after the rendition of its determination was a proper exercise of discretion. The other contentions made by appellant have been considered and found to [556]*556be without merit. Hargett, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Titone and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 555, 393 N.Y.S.2d 78, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/filoseta-v-filoseta-nyappdiv-1977.