Joan G. v. Robert W.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Joan G. v. Robert W.

79 A.D.2d 708, 437 N.Y.S.2d 926, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14105

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 79 A.D.2d 708 (Joan G. v. Robert W.) 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

Joan G. v. Robert W., 79 A.D.2d 708, 437 N.Y.S.2d 926, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14105 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In a filiation proceeding pursuant to article 5 of the Family [709]*709Court Act, petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated March 16, 1979, which, after a hearing, dismissed the petition. Matter remitted to the Family Court, Queens County, for the making of findings of fact, and appeal held in abeyance in the interim. The Family Court failed to set forth the essential facts upon which its order was based, as required by section 165 of the Family Court Act and by CPLR 4213. (See Matter of Hudis v Hudis, 64 AD2d 653.) Since the record before this court is insufficient for a proper consideration of this appeal, it is necessary that there be further action by the Family Court consistent herewith. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In a filiation proceeding pursuant to article 5 of the Family [709]*709Court Act, petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated March 16, 1979, which, after a hearing, dismissed the petition. Matter remitted to the Family Court, Queens County, for the making of findings of fact, and appeal held in abeyance in the interim. The Family Court failed to set forth the essential facts upon which its order was based, as required by section 165 of the Family Court Act and by CPLR 4213. (See Matter of Hudis v Hudis, 64 AD2d 653.) Since the record before this court is insufficient for a proper consideration of this appeal, it is necessary that there be further action by the Family Court consistent herewith. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.2d 708, 437 N.Y.S.2d 926, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joan-g-v-robert-w-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack