Goldberg v. Goldberg
194 A.D. 920
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Goldberg v. Goldberg. Read the opinion of the Court — 205 A.D. 435 →
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 15, 1920·Published
Opinion
We think that this order is practically a review of one Special Term by another, made within too short a period, when there is no radical change in the circumstances. It seems to us that the increase of the allowance for the child is unwarranted. The order is, therefore, reversed, and motion denied without prejudice to an application for an order requiring the father to pay the doctor’s bills. Jenks, P. J., Mills, Putnam, Blaekmar and Kelly, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Goldberg v. Goldberg, 194 A.D. 920 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1920).
194 A.D. 920 (Goldberg v. Goldberg) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.