Lippiello v. Lippiello

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lippiello v. Lippiello

114 A.D.2d 958, 495 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53998

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 114 A.D.2d 958 (Lippiello v. Lippiello) 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

Lippiello v. Lippiello, 114 A.D.2d 958, 495 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53998 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a support proceeding, petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Pearce, J.), dated October 1, 1984, as amended October 2, 1984, which, inter alia, denied her motion to restore her application for increased alimony to the calendar. The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court, dated January 9, 1985, as, upon renewal, adhered to its original determination.

Appeal from the order dated October 1, 1984, as amended [959]*959October 2, 1984, dismissed, without costs or disbursements. That order was superseded by the order dated January 9, 1985, made upon renewal.

Order dated January 9, 1985 reversed, insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements, order dated October 1, 1984, as amended October 2, 1984, vacated, petitioner’s motion to restore her application for increased alimony to the calendar granted, and matter remitted to the Family Court, Queens County, for a hearing in accordance herewith.

Under all of the circumstances presented, the court should have granted petitioner’s application to restore her motion for increased alimony to the calendar. Petitioner being on jury duty on October 1, 1984, the court should then have adjourned the proceedings on her motion, as well as respondent’s applications to terminate alimony and for child support, to another date for a full hearing. Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Brown, Niehoff and Fiber, JJ., concur.

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

—In a support proceeding, petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Pearce, J.), dated October 1, 1984, as amended October 2, 1984, which, inter alia, denied her motion to restore her application for increased alimony to the calendar. The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court, dated January 9, 1985, as, upon renewal, adhered to its original determination.

Appeal from the order dated October 1, 1984, as amended [959]*959October 2, 1984, dismissed, without costs or disbursements. That order was superseded by the order dated January 9, 1985, made upon renewal.

Order dated January 9, 1985 reversed, insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements, order dated October 1, 1984, as amended October 2, 1984, vacated, petitioner’s motion to restore her application for increased alimony to the calendar granted, and matter remitted to the Family Court, Queens County, for a hearing in accordance herewith.

Under all of the circumstances presented, the court should have granted petitioner’s application to restore her motion for increased alimony to the calendar. Petitioner being on jury duty on October 1, 1984, the court should then have adjourned the proceedings on her motion, as well as respondent’s applications to terminate alimony and for child support, to another date for a full hearing. Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Brown, Niehoff and Fiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.2d 958, 495 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53998, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lippiello-v-lippiello-nyappdiv-1985.