Gajewski v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gajewski v. Williams

56 A.D.2d 627, 391 N.Y.S.2d 686, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10730

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 56 A.D.2d 627 (Gajewski v. Williams) 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

Gajewski v. Williams, 56 A.D.2d 627, 391 N.Y.S.2d 686, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10730 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a support proceeding, the appeals (by permission) are from two orders of the Family Court, Queens County, dated May 20, 1976 and September 2, 1976, respectively, the first of which modified a prior order by directing appellant to pay "$200 bi-weekly” for the support of two children by a payroll deduction order, and the second of which, upon' a finding that a child had reached her majority, modified the former order to "$100.00 bi-weekly” for the support of one child, and directed the payment of an additional "$50.00 bi-weekly until the arrears have been fully paid.” Orders reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding remanded to the Family Court for a new hearing in accordance herewith. The payroll deduction order of September 3, 1976 is to continue in force pending the final determination of the support proceeding in the Family [628]*628Court. The record of the proceedings in the Family Court contains insufficient evidence to sustain the orders. Before a support order can be modified there must be a determination, after a full and fair hearing, that the parties’ relative situations had changed since the original support order was made (see Matter of Reynolds v Reynolds, 50 AD2d 993; Matter of Amicucci v Moore, 42 AD2d 701). A determination should also be made of the arrears outstanding between the years of 1972 to 1976. Rabin, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Titone and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In a support proceeding, the appeals (by permission) are from two orders of the Family Court, Queens County, dated May 20, 1976 and September 2, 1976, respectively, the first of which modified a prior order by directing appellant to pay "$200 bi-weekly” for the support of two children by a payroll deduction order, and the second of which, upon' a finding that a child had reached her majority, modified the former order to "$100.00 bi-weekly” for the support of one child, and directed the payment of an additional "$50.00 bi-weekly until the arrears have been fully paid.” Orders reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding remanded to the Family Court for a new hearing in accordance herewith. The payroll deduction order of September 3, 1976 is to continue in force pending the final determination of the support proceeding in the Family [628]*628Court. The record of the proceedings in the Family Court contains insufficient evidence to sustain the orders. Before a support order can be modified there must be a determination, after a full and fair hearing, that the parties’ relative situations had changed since the original support order was made (see Matter of Reynolds v Reynolds, 50 AD2d 993; Matter of Amicucci v Moore, 42 AD2d 701). A determination should also be made of the arrears outstanding between the years of 1972 to 1976. Rabin, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Titone and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 627, 391 N.Y.S.2d 686, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gajewski-v-williams-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack