Fleischer v. Fleischer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fleischer v. Fleischer

25 A.D.2d 901, 269 N.Y.S.2d 270, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4358

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

DecidedMay 3, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 25 A.D.2d 901 (Fleischer v. Fleischer) 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

Fleischer v. Fleischer, 25 A.D.2d 901, 269 N.Y.S.2d 270, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4358 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

-Reynolds, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Sullivan County. When -these litigants were recently before us (Matter of Fleischer v. Fleischer, 24 A D 2d 667), we affirmed, after increasing the amount to be paid, an order of support for the dependent minors involved. The Family Court has now conditioned the payment of such support on appellant’s compliance with certain visitation rights it granted -the respondent. The sole question presented on this -appeal is whether the Family Court had jurisdiction to condition the support order in the maimer in which it did. We believe -that it manifestly had such jurisdiction. The Family Court clearly had jurisdiction over the appellant against whom the order runs (Domestic Relations Law, § 34), and section 447 of the Family Court Act clearly-gives it the power to issue the order made in the present case (Matter of Silvestris v. Silvestris, 24 A D 2d 247, 251; Matter of Strecker v. Strecker, 10 A D 2d 312, 314; Matter of Guyette v. Haley, 286 App. Div. 451, 461; see, also, Matter of Beddini v. Beddini, 281 App. Div. 701). Order affirmed, without costs.

Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

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

-Reynolds, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Sullivan County. When -these litigants were recently before us (Matter of Fleischer v. Fleischer, 24 A D 2d 667), we affirmed, after increasing the amount to be paid, an order of support for the dependent minors involved. The Family Court has now conditioned the payment of such support on appellant’s compliance with certain visitation rights it granted -the respondent. The sole question presented on this -appeal is whether the Family Court had jurisdiction to condition the support order in the maimer in which it did. We believe -that it manifestly had such jurisdiction. The Family Court clearly had jurisdiction over the appellant against whom the order runs (Domestic Relations Law, § 34), and section 447 of the Family Court Act clearly-gives it the power to issue the order made in the present case (Matter of Silvestris v. Silvestris, 24 A D 2d 247, 251; Matter of Strecker v. Strecker, 10 A D 2d 312, 314; Matter of Guyette v. Haley, 286 App. Div. 451, 461; see, also, Matter of Beddini v. Beddini, 281 App. Div. 701). Order affirmed, without costs.

Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 901, 269 N.Y.S.2d 270, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fleischer-v-fleischer-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack