Friedman v. Friedman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Friedman v. Friedman

23 A.D.2d 558, 256 N.Y.S.2d 635, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4847

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

DecidedFebruary 18, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 558 (Friedman v. Friedman) 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

Friedman v. Friedman, 23 A.D.2d 558, 256 N.Y.S.2d 635, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4847 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on August 25, 1964, awarding support to petitioner and the four issue of the marriage in the sum of $125 per week, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, to the extent of eliminating the provision requiring the respondent to pay for psychiatric treatment for petitioner, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. The court’s indorsement on the docket sheet shows the disposition which is deemed incorporated within said order; and the order is modified accordingly. In addition to the monetary support of $125 per week, respondent is directed to continue to pay the expenses he has heretofore paid directly: mortgage interest, amortization, taxes, assessments against the property, gas, electric, heat, oil, maintenance charges, medical and dental bills for the family and premiums on his life insurance policy for the benefit of his children. The necessity for private psychiatric treatment has not been'established on this record. The hearing was informal; both parties were present and represented by counsel; a full inquiry was made; there was reasonable opportunity for cross-examination and no request therefor was made. Consequently, there was no necessity to return the proceeding to New Jersey, the initiating State. (See Domestic Relations Law, § 37.) Concur -— Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Steuer and Staley, JJ.

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

Order, entered on August 25, 1964, awarding support to petitioner and the four issue of the marriage in the sum of $125 per week, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, to the extent of eliminating the provision requiring the respondent to pay for psychiatric treatment for petitioner, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. The court’s indorsement on the docket sheet shows the disposition which is deemed incorporated within said order; and the order is modified accordingly. In addition to the monetary support of $125 per week, respondent is directed to continue to pay the expenses he has heretofore paid directly: mortgage interest, amortization, taxes, assessments against the property, gas, electric, heat, oil, maintenance charges, medical and dental bills for the family and premiums on his life insurance policy for the benefit of his children. The necessity for private psychiatric treatment has not been'established on this record. The hearing was informal; both parties were present and represented by counsel; a full inquiry was made; there was reasonable opportunity for cross-examination and no request therefor was made. Consequently, there was no necessity to return the proceeding to New Jersey, the initiating State. (See Domestic Relations Law, § 37.) Concur -— Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Steuer and Staley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 558, 256 N.Y.S.2d 635, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedman-v-friedman-nyappdiv-1965.