Grossman v. Ostrow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grossman v. Ostrow

31 A.D.2d 797, 297 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4590

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

DecidedFebruary 18, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 797 (Grossman v. Ostrow) 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

Grossman v. Ostrow, 31 A.D.2d 797, 297 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4590 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of Family Court, dated May 24, 1968, modifying a support provision incorporated in a New Jersey decree of divorce, unanimously modified on the law and facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of directing respondent-appellant to pay the sum of $150 per week for the support of the child, the same to be made in lieu of all other payments, payments to be retroactive to May 24, 1968, and as so modified, affirmed, without costs or disbursements. We believe the record will not support an award in excess of the amount directed, and while circumstances may occasionally appear which require a different disposition, we think the more desirable practice is to make an inclusive award of a specified sum rather than direct payments of indefinite amounts to third parties. (Schine v. Schine, 28 A D 2d 976; Macris v. Macris, 29 A D 2d 528; Sklan v. Sklan, 29 A D 2d 526.) We find no valid reason for disturbing the award of counsel fees. Concur — Capozzoli, J. P., Nunez, McNally, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.

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

Order of Family Court, dated May 24, 1968, modifying a support provision incorporated in a New Jersey decree of divorce, unanimously modified on the law and facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of directing respondent-appellant to pay the sum of $150 per week for the support of the child, the same to be made in lieu of all other payments, payments to be retroactive to May 24, 1968, and as so modified, affirmed, without costs or disbursements. We believe the record will not support an award in excess of the amount directed, and while circumstances may occasionally appear which require a different disposition, we think the more desirable practice is to make an inclusive award of a specified sum rather than direct payments of indefinite amounts to third parties. (Schine v. Schine, 28 A D 2d 976; Macris v. Macris, 29 A D 2d 528; Sklan v. Sklan, 29 A D 2d 526.) We find no valid reason for disturbing the award of counsel fees. Concur — Capozzoli, J. P., Nunez, McNally, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 797, 297 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grossman-v-ostrow-nyappdiv-1969.