Jones v. Jones

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jones v. Jones

65 A.D.2d 573, 409 N.Y.S.2d 390, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13224

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

DecidedOctober 10, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 65 A.D.2d 573 (Jones v. Jones) 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

Jones v. Jones, 65 A.D.2d 573, 409 N.Y.S.2d 390, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13224 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to article 4 of the Family Court Act, the husband appeals from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County, dated June 15, 1977, which, after a hearing, inter alia, only reduced his support payments from $100 per week to $50 per week. Order modified, on the facts, by further reducing the support payments to the sum of $30 per week. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Based upon the evidence adduced at the Family Court hearing, it is our view that the payments required by the order of the Family Court, although reduced, are still excessive. Under the circumstances, a further reduction is warranted. Hopkins, J. P., Latham, Gulotta and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to article 4 of the Family Court Act, the husband appeals from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County, dated June 15, 1977, which, after a hearing, inter alia, only reduced his support payments from $100 per week to $50 per week. Order modified, on the facts, by further reducing the support payments to the sum of $30 per week. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Based upon the evidence adduced at the Family Court hearing, it is our view that the payments required by the order of the Family Court, although reduced, are still excessive. Under the circumstances, a further reduction is warranted. Hopkins, J. P., Latham, Gulotta and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A.D.2d 573, 409 N.Y.S.2d 390, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-jones-nyappdiv-1978.