Larotondo v. Larotondo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Larotondo v. Larotondo

2 A.D.2d 898, 157 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3808

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.2d 898 (Larotondo v. Larotondo) 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

Larotondo v. Larotondo, 2 A.D.2d 898, 157 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3808 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order which, among other things, denies respondent’s motion to punish appellant for contempt for failure to pay alimony from March 29, 1954 to July 12,1954, modified the judgment of divorce by reducing the alimony from $25 to $15 a week beginning March 29, 1954 and requires appellant to pay $5 a week on account of arrears. Order modified on the facts by striking “ 29th day of March ” from the fourth ordering paragraph and by substituting -therefor “ 12th day of July”. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. It was an improvident exercise of discretion to require appellant to -begin the reduced alimony payments at a time and for a period when he was unemployed. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldoek, Murphy and Hallinan, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order which, among other things, denies respondent’s motion to punish appellant for contempt for failure to pay alimony from March 29, 1954 to July 12,1954, modified the judgment of divorce by reducing the alimony from $25 to $15 a week beginning March 29, 1954 and requires appellant to pay $5 a week on account of arrears. Order modified on the facts by striking “ 29th day of March ” from the fourth ordering paragraph and by substituting -therefor “ 12th day of July”. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. It was an improvident exercise of discretion to require appellant to -begin the reduced alimony payments at a time and for a period when he was unemployed. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldoek, Murphy and Hallinan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.2d 898, 157 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larotondo-v-larotondo-nyappdiv-1956.