Goldsmith v. Goldsmith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldsmith v. Goldsmith

16 A.D.2d 663, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10462

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

DecidedApril 9, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.2d 663 (Goldsmith v. Goldsmith) 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

Goldsmith v. Goldsmith, 16 A.D.2d 663, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10462 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by a wife for a judicial separation, in which the husband asserted a counterclaim for the same relief, the defendant appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered January 26, 1960, upon the decision of the court after a nonjury trial, dismissing the complaint and counterclaim, as directed him to pay $100 a week for the support of their infant son; as directed him to pay the arrears of temporary alimony and the cost of certain utilities in accordance with a prior order of an Official Referee, dated December 13, 1957; as granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm the report of the Special Referee and as denied his (defendant’s) motion to dis-affirm such report; and as denied his motion to modify said prior order of the Official Referee by expunging the alimony arrears therein specified which he (defendant) is now directed to pay by the judgment under review. Judgment, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with costs. In our opinion, the record clearly establishes that defendant should pay at least $100 a week for the child’s support. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by a wife for a judicial separation, in which the husband asserted a counterclaim for the same relief, the defendant appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered January 26, 1960, upon the decision of the court after a nonjury trial, dismissing the complaint and counterclaim, as directed him to pay $100 a week for the support of their infant son; as directed him to pay the arrears of temporary alimony and the cost of certain utilities in accordance with a prior order of an Official Referee, dated December 13, 1957; as granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm the report of the Special Referee and as denied his (defendant’s) motion to dis-affirm such report; and as denied his motion to modify said prior order of the Official Referee by expunging the alimony arrears therein specified which he (defendant) is now directed to pay by the judgment under review. Judgment, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with costs. In our opinion, the record clearly establishes that defendant should pay at least $100 a week for the child’s support. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.2d 663, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldsmith-v-goldsmith-nyappdiv-1962.