Florio v. Florio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Florio v. Florio

74 A.D.2d 570, 424 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10205

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 74 A.D.2d 570 (Florio v. Florio) 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

Florio v. Florio, 74 A.D.2d 570, 424 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10205 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In a support proceeding, the petitioner wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Nassau County, entered April 3, 1979, as denied her support for herself and awarded child support of $25 per week. Order modified, on the law and the facts, by adding thereto a provision requiring the respondent to pay the petitioner support for herself of $25 per week. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. In view of the financial circumstances of the parties the order under review was deficient insofar as it failed to make adequate provision for the petitioner. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur.

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

In a support proceeding, the petitioner wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Nassau County, entered April 3, 1979, as denied her support for herself and awarded child support of $25 per week. Order modified, on the law and the facts, by adding thereto a provision requiring the respondent to pay the petitioner support for herself of $25 per week. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. In view of the financial circumstances of the parties the order under review was deficient insofar as it failed to make adequate provision for the petitioner. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.2d 570, 424 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florio-v-florio-nyappdiv-1980.