Giambalvo v. Giambalvo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Giambalvo v. Giambalvo

59 A.D.2d 711, 398 N.Y.S.2d 382, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13678

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

DecidedOctober 11, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 59 A.D.2d 711 (Giambalvo v. Giambalvo) 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

Giambalvo v. Giambalvo, 59 A.D.2d 711, 398 N.Y.S.2d 382, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13678 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to section 244 of the Domestic Relations Law, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 5, 1977, as (1) fixed arrears in support due under a judgment of divorce, (2) awarded a counsel fee and (3) granted plaintiff’s motion for a wage deduction order. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding remanded to Special Term for a hearing in accordance herewith. In the light of the defendant’s allegations that there has been a change in financial circumstances due to the full-time employment of the plaintiff, Special Term should have held a hearing to determine the current financial situation and the requirements of the plaintiff and the children (see Sarnicola v Sarnicola, 50 AD2d 842). Cohalan, J. P., Titone, Hawkins and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to section 244 of the Domestic Relations Law, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 5, 1977, as (1) fixed arrears in support due under a judgment of divorce, (2) awarded a counsel fee and (3) granted plaintiff’s motion for a wage deduction order. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding remanded to Special Term for a hearing in accordance herewith. In the light of the defendant’s allegations that there has been a change in financial circumstances due to the full-time employment of the plaintiff, Special Term should have held a hearing to determine the current financial situation and the requirements of the plaintiff and the children (see Sarnicola v Sarnicola, 50 AD2d 842). Cohalan, J. P., Titone, Hawkins and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.2d 711, 398 N.Y.S.2d 382, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giambalvo-v-giambalvo-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack