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

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

DecidedApril 18, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 29 A.D.2d 928 (Garfield v. Garfield) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 928, 289 N.Y.S.2d 237, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garfield-v-garfield-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack