Mauss v. Mauss

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mauss v. Mauss

203 A.D.2d 101, 612 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3788

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

DecidedApril 12, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 203 A.D.2d 101 (Mauss v. Mauss) 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

Mauss v. Mauss, 203 A.D.2d 101, 612 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3788 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Family Court, Kings County (Karen Burstein, J.), entered on or about December 2, 1991, which denied respondent’s objections to the Hearing Examiner’s order enforcing a 1982 child support order and directing a hearing on the amount of arrears, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although petitioner’s excuse for her delay in enforcing the parties’ 1982 support order is weak, delay alone is insufficient to bar a claim on the ground of laches (Matter of Department of Social Servs. v Wright, 112 AD2d 159, 160), and respondent’s claim of lack of knowledge that petitioner would seek to enforce the order and prejudice as a result of the delay are not convincing (see, Maule v Kaufman, 33 NY2d 58). We have considered respondent’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Asch, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Family Court, Kings County (Karen Burstein, J.), entered on or about December 2, 1991, which denied respondent’s objections to the Hearing Examiner’s order enforcing a 1982 child support order and directing a hearing on the amount of arrears, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although petitioner’s excuse for her delay in enforcing the parties’ 1982 support order is weak, delay alone is insufficient to bar a claim on the ground of laches (Matter of Department of Social Servs. v Wright, 112 AD2d 159, 160), and respondent’s claim of lack of knowledge that petitioner would seek to enforce the order and prejudice as a result of the delay are not convincing (see, Maule v Kaufman, 33 NY2d 58). We have considered respondent’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Asch, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 101, 612 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mauss-v-mauss-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack