Gerstner v. Gerstner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gerstner v. Gerstner

178 A.D.2d 977, 578 N.Y.S.2d 737, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17827

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

DecidedDecember 26, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 178 A.D.2d 977 (Gerstner v. Gerstner) 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

Gerstner v. Gerstner, 178 A.D.2d 977, 578 N.Y.S.2d 737, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17827 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the Hearing Examiner’s decision. We add only that we reject defendant’s argument that it was error to award child support arrears because the parties’ stipulation did not direct the payment of specific amounts of child support. His reliance on Baratta v Baratía (122 AD2d 3) is misplaced. That case involved entry of a judgment pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 244 in the absence of a prior order or judgment directing payment of a specific amount. Here, the order in question directs defendant to pay the child support arrears within 20 days of service of the order and that his failure to pay the arrears would entitle plaintiff to judgment in that amount. (Appeal from Order of Ontario County Family Court, Harvey, J. — Maintenance and Child Support.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the Hearing Examiner’s decision. We add only that we reject defendant’s argument that it was error to award child support arrears because the parties’ stipulation did not direct the payment of specific amounts of child support. His reliance on Baratta v Baratía (122 AD2d 3) is misplaced. That case involved entry of a judgment pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 244 in the absence of a prior order or judgment directing payment of a specific amount. Here, the order in question directs defendant to pay the child support arrears within 20 days of service of the order and that his failure to pay the arrears would entitle plaintiff to judgment in that amount. (Appeal from Order of Ontario County Family Court, Harvey, J. — Maintenance and Child Support.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A.D.2d 977, 578 N.Y.S.2d 737, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gerstner-v-gerstner-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack