McGill v. McGill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McGill v. McGill

56 A.D.2d 941, 392 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11348

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

DecidedMarch 29, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 941 (McGill v. McGill) 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

McGill v. McGill, 56 A.D.2d 941, 392 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11348 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a support proceeding pursuant to article 4 of the Family Court Act, the appeal, as limited by appellant’s brief, is from so much of an order of the Family Court, Nassau County, dated October 25, 1976, as, after a hearing, directed appellant to pay $100 per week for the support of petitioner-respondent. Proceeding remanded to the Family Court for a further hearing and the making of findings in accordance herewith and the appeal shall be held in abeyance in the interim. The order appealed from shall remain in effect pending a new determination by the Family Court. In our opinion and in the light of an inadequate record, another hearing is required to develop all of the facts on which an appropriate determination can be reached as to whether the petitioner is entitled to an award of support, and if so, to what extent. At the new hearing in addition to all other factors, there shall be a full exploration of the petitioner’s present physical condition, the possibility of her being employed, and what earning capacity, if any, she possesses, as well as the financial resources of the appellant (see Matter of Frensdorff v Frensdorff, 47 AD2d 645; Matter of Panek v Panek, 45 AD2d 712). Cohalan, Acting P. J., Hawkins, Suozzi and Mollen, JJ., concur.

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

In a support proceeding pursuant to article 4 of the Family Court Act, the appeal, as limited by appellant’s brief, is from so much of an order of the Family Court, Nassau County, dated October 25, 1976, as, after a hearing, directed appellant to pay $100 per week for the support of petitioner-respondent. Proceeding remanded to the Family Court for a further hearing and the making of findings in accordance herewith and the appeal shall be held in abeyance in the interim. The order appealed from shall remain in effect pending a new determination by the Family Court. In our opinion and in the light of an inadequate record, another hearing is required to develop all of the facts on which an appropriate determination can be reached as to whether the petitioner is entitled to an award of support, and if so, to what extent. At the new hearing in addition to all other factors, there shall be a full exploration of the petitioner’s present physical condition, the possibility of her being employed, and what earning capacity, if any, she possesses, as well as the financial resources of the appellant (see Matter of Frensdorff v Frensdorff, 47 AD2d 645; Matter of Panek v Panek, 45 AD2d 712). Cohalan, Acting P. J., Hawkins, Suozzi and Mollen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 941, 392 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgill-v-mcgill-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack