Knoll v. Kilcher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Knoll v. Kilcher

134 A.D.2d 678

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

DecidedNovember 5, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 134 A.D.2d 678 (Knoll v. Kilcher) 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

Knoll v. Kilcher, 134 A.D.2d 678 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Albany County (Cheeseman, J.), entered May 16, 1986, which granted petitioner’s application to terminate a prior support order.

We agree with Family Court’s reasoning in granting the petition. We add only that, contrary to respondent’s assertion, the denial by a Justice of this court on May 15, 1985 of petitioner’s application to stay enforcement of Family Court’s support order of September 21, 1984 pending appeal has no res judicata effect; it did not preclude the later issuance of Family Court’s order terminating petitioner’s support obligation because the facts underlying the two orders are different. [679]*679Order affirmed, without costs. Casey, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Albany County (Cheeseman, J.), entered May 16, 1986, which granted petitioner’s application to terminate a prior support order.

We agree with Family Court’s reasoning in granting the petition. We add only that, contrary to respondent’s assertion, the denial by a Justice of this court on May 15, 1985 of petitioner’s application to stay enforcement of Family Court’s support order of September 21, 1984 pending appeal has no res judicata effect; it did not preclude the later issuance of Family Court’s order terminating petitioner’s support obligation because the facts underlying the two orders are different. [679]*679Order affirmed, without costs. Casey, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.2d 678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knoll-v-kilcher-nyappdiv-1988.