Keely v. Keely

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Keely v. Keely

83 A.D.2d 624, 441 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14918

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

DecidedJuly 27, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 83 A.D.2d 624 (Keely v. Keely) 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

Keely v. Keely, 83 A.D.2d 624, 441 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14918 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the defendant husband had been granted a judgment of divorce, defendant appeals from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Duberstein, J.), dated June 3, 1980, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion for a money judgment for arrears and denied portions of his cross motion. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and case remitted to Special Term for the holding of an evidentiary hearing and the making of a new determination based on the court’s findings after such hearing. The issues raised should not have been determined without a hearing. Damiani, J.P., Titone, Mangano and Gibbons, 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 defendant husband had been granted a judgment of divorce, defendant appeals from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Duberstein, J.), dated June 3, 1980, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion for a money judgment for arrears and denied portions of his cross motion. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and case remitted to Special Term for the holding of an evidentiary hearing and the making of a new determination based on the court’s findings after such hearing. The issues raised should not have been determined without a hearing. Damiani, J.P., Titone, Mangano and Gibbons, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.2d 624, 441 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keely-v-keely-nyappdiv-1981.