Marks v. Marks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marks v. Marks

40 A.D.2d 981, 338 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3194

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

DecidedDecember 4, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 40 A.D.2d 981 (Marks v. Marks) 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

Marks v. Marks, 40 A.D.2d 981, 338 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3194 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 20, 1972, which denied her motion to modify a judgment of divorce to provide an allowance for clothing for the two minor children of the parties. Order reversed, without costs, and motion remitted to the Special Term for a hearing on the factual issues presented and for a determination de novo. In our opinion, too many relevant factual issues were left undecided by Special Term. The needs of the children, the income of the defendant father and the true intent of. the parties, as manifested in the discussions as to a prospective stipulation relating to clothing provisions, are all without resolution. Since the welfare of children is at issue, a hearing must be had to determine what action is just [982]*982and to their benefit. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Christ, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 20, 1972, which denied her motion to modify a judgment of divorce to provide an allowance for clothing for the two minor children of the parties. Order reversed, without costs, and motion remitted to the Special Term for a hearing on the factual issues presented and for a determination de novo. In our opinion, too many relevant factual issues were left undecided by Special Term. The needs of the children, the income of the defendant father and the true intent of. the parties, as manifested in the discussions as to a prospective stipulation relating to clothing provisions, are all without resolution. Since the welfare of children is at issue, a hearing must be had to determine what action is just [982]*982and to their benefit. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Christ, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 981, 338 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marks-v-marks-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack