Malfi v. Malfi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Malfi v. Malfi

102 A.D.2d 814, 476 N.Y.S.2d 599, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18983

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

DecidedJune 4, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 102 A.D.2d 814 (Malfi v. Malfi) 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

Malfi v. Malfi, 102 A.D.2d 814, 476 N.Y.S.2d 599, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18983 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the plaintiff wife was granted a divorce, the defendant husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Duberstein, J.), dated October 3, 1983, which, inter alia, modified the terms and conditions of defendant’s visitation privileges, and denied his application for the suspension of an existing wage garnishment order. 11 Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings consistent herewith before a Judge other than the Judge who made the order under review. $ In light of the numerous conflicting allegations of the parties with respect to the relief each was requesting, it was error to resolve the issues raised without first conducting an evidentiary hearing. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Thompson and Brown, 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 plaintiff wife was granted a divorce, the defendant husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Duberstein, J.), dated October 3, 1983, which, inter alia, modified the terms and conditions of defendant’s visitation privileges, and denied his application for the suspension of an existing wage garnishment order. 11 Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings consistent herewith before a Judge other than the Judge who made the order under review. $ In light of the numerous conflicting allegations of the parties with respect to the relief each was requesting, it was error to resolve the issues raised without first conducting an evidentiary hearing. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Thompson and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 A.D.2d 814, 476 N.Y.S.2d 599, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18983, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malfi-v-malfi-nyappdiv-1984.