Metzger v. Metzger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Metzger v. Metzger

206 A.D.2d 352, 614 N.Y.S.2d 326, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7130

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

DecidedJuly 5, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 206 A.D.2d 352 (Metzger v. Metzger) 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

Metzger v. Metzger, 206 A.D.2d 352, 614 N.Y.S.2d 326, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7130 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment entered February 21, 1990, the defendant former wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Christ, J.), dated May 11, 1992, which granted the plaintiff husband’s application to punish her for contempt for, inter alia, failing to provide life insurance.

[353]*353Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court properly found the appellant in contempt. The court was not required to conduct a hearing on the plaintiff former husband’s application, as the appellant did not dispute his factual allegations (see, Bowie v Bowie, 182 AD2d 1049). We have considered the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. We note, however, that she has commenced a plenary action to set aside the parties’ separation agreement, on the ground that she was coerced into signing it. That issue is not presently before this Court and, thus, we take no position on it. Rosenblatt, J. P., Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, 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 a judgment entered February 21, 1990, the defendant former wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Christ, J.), dated May 11, 1992, which granted the plaintiff husband’s application to punish her for contempt for, inter alia, failing to provide life insurance.

[353]*353Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court properly found the appellant in contempt. The court was not required to conduct a hearing on the plaintiff former husband’s application, as the appellant did not dispute his factual allegations (see, Bowie v Bowie, 182 AD2d 1049). We have considered the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. We note, however, that she has commenced a plenary action to set aside the parties’ separation agreement, on the ground that she was coerced into signing it. That issue is not presently before this Court and, thus, we take no position on it. Rosenblatt, J. P., Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 A.D.2d 352, 614 N.Y.S.2d 326, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metzger-v-metzger-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack