Meshkat v. Meshkat

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meshkat v. Meshkat

150 A.D.2d 534, 543 N.Y.S.2d 265, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6943

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

DecidedMay 15, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 150 A.D.2d 534 (Meshkat v. Meshkat) 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

Meshkat v. Meshkat, 150 A.D.2d 534, 543 N.Y.S.2d 265, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6943 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered November 6, 1969, the plaintiff wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), entered February 18, 1986, as, limited her award of arrears of child support to $680 and otherwise denied her motion, inter [535]*535alia, for leave to enter a money judgment for arrears of child support.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The record lacks any evidentiary support for the plaintiff’s contention that she is entitled to arrears of child support in excess of $680. Moreover, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate by evidentiary proof that there had been a change in circumstances justifying a modification of the child support payments previously awarded. Since the parties stipulated to a determination of all the issues presented by the plaintiff’s motion on the papers alone, we reject her belated claim that a hearing should have been granted (see generally, Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224; Lynch v Lynch, 97 AD2d 814).

We have examined the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lawrence, J. P., Harwood, Balletta and Rosenblatt, 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 parties were divorced by judgment entered November 6, 1969, the plaintiff wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), entered February 18, 1986, as, limited her award of arrears of child support to $680 and otherwise denied her motion, inter [535]*535alia, for leave to enter a money judgment for arrears of child support.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The record lacks any evidentiary support for the plaintiff’s contention that she is entitled to arrears of child support in excess of $680. Moreover, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate by evidentiary proof that there had been a change in circumstances justifying a modification of the child support payments previously awarded. Since the parties stipulated to a determination of all the issues presented by the plaintiff’s motion on the papers alone, we reject her belated claim that a hearing should have been granted (see generally, Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224; Lynch v Lynch, 97 AD2d 814).

We have examined the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lawrence, J. P., Harwood, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 A.D.2d 534, 543 N.Y.S.2d 265, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meshkat-v-meshkat-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack