Hsiung v. Hsiung

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hsiung v. Hsiung

54 A.D.2d 972, 388 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14906

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

DecidedNovember 29, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 972 (Hsiung v. Hsiung) 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

Hsiung v. Hsiung, 54 A.D.2d 972, 388 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the plaintiff wife had been granted a judgment of divorce, defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 30, 1976, as granted plaintiff’s application for a wage deduction order pursuant to section 49-b of the Personal Property Law. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and action remanded to Special Term, with a direction that a hearing on the parties’ motions to modify the support terms incorporated into the divorce decree be held forthwith. Under the circumstances of this case, the Special Term was without authority to grant plaintiff’s application for a wage deduction order. Subdivision 3 of section 49-b of the Personal Property Law empowers the court to grant the order if the person liable to pay support pursuant to a court order has failed to present evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption of delinquency. In the case at bar, defendant was not given such an opportunity; the payroll deduction order was issued pending the hearing on his motion to modify his support obligations. We have directed that such hearing be held forthwith in order to avoid any injustice which might be occasioned by further delays. Margett, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hawkins and Mollen, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action in which the plaintiff wife had been granted a judgment of divorce, defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 30, 1976, as granted plaintiff’s application for a wage deduction order pursuant to section 49-b of the Personal Property Law. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and action remanded to Special Term, with a direction that a hearing on the parties’ motions to modify the support terms incorporated into the divorce decree be held forthwith. Under the circumstances of this case, the Special Term was without authority to grant plaintiff’s application for a wage deduction order. Subdivision 3 of section 49-b of the Personal Property Law empowers the court to grant the order if the person liable to pay support pursuant to a court order has failed to present evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption of delinquency. In the case at bar, defendant was not given such an opportunity; the payroll deduction order was issued pending the hearing on his motion to modify his support obligations. We have directed that such hearing be held forthwith in order to avoid any injustice which might be occasioned by further delays. Margett, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hawkins and Mollen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 972, 388 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hsiung-v-hsiung-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack