Heinzman v. Zeilinski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Heinzman v. Zeilinski

127 A.D.2d 594, 511 N.Y.S.2d 392, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43062

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 127 A.D.2d 594 (Heinzman v. Zeilinski) 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

Heinzman v. Zeilinski, 127 A.D.2d 594, 511 N.Y.S.2d 392, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43062 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4 to enforce the child support provisions of a judgment of divorce between the parties, the petitioner appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Capilli, J.), entered August 14, 1985, as, after a stipulation of settlement, sua sponte allocated the respondent’s weekly child support payments among the parties’ three children.

Ordered that the order is reversed, insofar as appeal from, in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements.

The court exceeded its authority in modifying the terms of the parties’ stipulation of settlement over the petitioner’s objection (see, Matter of New York, Lackawanna & W. R.R. Co., 98 NY 447, 453; Covert v Covert, 50 AD2d 622, 623). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4 to enforce the child support provisions of a judgment of divorce between the parties, the petitioner appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Capilli, J.), entered August 14, 1985, as, after a stipulation of settlement, sua sponte allocated the respondent’s weekly child support payments among the parties’ three children.

Ordered that the order is reversed, insofar as appeal from, in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements.

The court exceeded its authority in modifying the terms of the parties’ stipulation of settlement over the petitioner’s objection (see, Matter of New York, Lackawanna & W. R.R. Co., 98 NY 447, 453; Covert v Covert, 50 AD2d 622, 623). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.2d 594, 511 N.Y.S.2d 392, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43062, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heinzman-v-zeilinski-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack