Lasini v. Lasini

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lasini v. Lasini

104 A.D.2d 1027, 480 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20464

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

DecidedOctober 29, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 104 A.D.2d 1027 (Lasini v. Lasini) 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

Lasini v. Lasini, 104 A.D.2d 1027, 480 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20464 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action for a judgment declaring subdivision (1) of section 170 of the Domestic Relations Law unconstitutional, plaintiff Elsie Lasini appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Isseks, J.), dated April 24, 1984, which declared, inter alia, that the subdivision does not violate either the United States Constitution or the New York State Constitution.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

[1028]*1028The common thread of plaintiff’s seven points is that the subject statute is unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous. We find no merit to plaintiff’s arguments (see Matter of Patricia A., 31 NY2d 83, 86-87). Brown, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action for a judgment declaring subdivision (1) of section 170 of the Domestic Relations Law unconstitutional, plaintiff Elsie Lasini appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Isseks, J.), dated April 24, 1984, which declared, inter alia, that the subdivision does not violate either the United States Constitution or the New York State Constitution.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

[1028]*1028The common thread of plaintiff’s seven points is that the subject statute is unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous. We find no merit to plaintiff’s arguments (see Matter of Patricia A., 31 NY2d 83, 86-87). Brown, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 A.D.2d 1027, 480 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lasini-v-lasini-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack