Flick v. Flick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Flick v. Flick

2 A.D.2d 695, 152 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4969

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

DecidedJune 18, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.2d 695 (Flick v. Flick) 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

Flick v. Flick, 2 A.D.2d 695, 152 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4969 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Domestic Relations Court of the City of New York, Family Court Division, County of Queens, directing appellant to make specified payments for the support of the two children of the parties. Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. The proof, credited by the trial court, overwhelmingly establishes that the parties entered into a ceremonial marriage in Juarez, Mexico, in July, 1946. Although that marriage was void because the appellant was then married to another, the trial court had power to make an award for the support of the children, under subdivision 6 of section 101 of the Domestic Relations Court Act of the City of New York. The cross-examination of the respondent was somewhat restricted. If it be assumed that this was error, it may be disregarded under section 106 of the Civil Practice Act. Present — Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Domestic Relations Court of the City of New York, Family Court Division, County of Queens, directing appellant to make specified payments for the support of the two children of the parties. Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. The proof, credited by the trial court, overwhelmingly establishes that the parties entered into a ceremonial marriage in Juarez, Mexico, in July, 1946. Although that marriage was void because the appellant was then married to another, the trial court had power to make an award for the support of the children, under subdivision 6 of section 101 of the Domestic Relations Court Act of the City of New York. The cross-examination of the respondent was somewhat restricted. If it be assumed that this was error, it may be disregarded under section 106 of the Civil Practice Act. Present — Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.2d 695, 152 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4969, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flick-v-flick-nyappdiv-1956.