Garfield v. Garfield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garfield v. Garfield

29 A.D.2d 928, 289 N.Y.S.2d 237, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4223

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 18, 1968·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order of Family Court, entered March 20,1967, directing respondent husband to pay the sum of $25 per week for the support of petitioner wife, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion to increase the amount to be paid to the sum of $75 per week, and order otherwise affirmed, without costs and disbursements. The Family Court found that an adequate support order could not be made, principally due to respondent’s substantial indebtedness. However, considering respondent’s most recent income of $20,000 per year (his lowest income in many years) and his expectations of much higher earnings, the award of $25 per week, stated as a “ nominal amount ”, is not adequate. The evidence in the record, viewed as a whole, supports the award hereby fixed as a “fair and reasonable sum” according to respondent’s means. (Family Ct. Act, § 412.) Concur — Eager, J. P., Steuer, Tilzer, MeGivern and McNally, JJ.

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

Order of Family Court, entered March 20,1967, directing respondent husband to pay the sum of $25 per week for the support of petitioner wife, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion to increase the amount to be paid to the sum of $75 per week, and order otherwise affirmed, without costs and disbursements. The Family Court found that an adequate support order could not be made, principally due to respondent’s substantial indebtedness. However, considering respondent’s most recent income of $20,000 per year (his lowest income in many years) and his expectations of much higher earnings, the award of $25 per week, stated as a “ nominal amount ”, is not adequate. The evidence in the record, viewed as a whole, supports the award hereby fixed as a “fair and reasonable sum” according to respondent’s means. (Family Ct. Act, § 412.) Concur — Eager, J. P., Steuer, Tilzer, MeGivern and McNally, JJ.

Garfield v. Garfield, 29 A.D.2d 928, 289 N.Y.S.2d 237, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4223 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

29 A.D.2d 928 (Garfield v. Garfield) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related