Minch v. Minch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Minch v. Minch

117 A.D.2d 737, 498 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53012

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

DecidedFebruary 18, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 117 A.D.2d 737 (Minch v. Minch) 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

Minch v. Minch, 117 A.D.2d 737, 498 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53012 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to the Uniform Support of Dependents Law (Domestic Relations Law art 3-A), the husband appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Auperin, J.), entered August 14, 1984, which, inter alia, fixed the amount of arrears of alimony and ordered the immediate resumption of alimony payments.

Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Since the Uniform Support of Dependents Law (Domestic Relations Law art 3-A) provides an additional or alternate means of enforcing the petitioner’s right to alimony (Domestic Relations Law § 41 [1]), the Family Court did not err in denying the husband’s motion to dismiss this proceeding on the ground that another action was pending for the same relief (cf. Nichols v Bardua, 74 AD2d 566; Clay v Clay, 54 AD2d 647). In addition, the court properly ruled that the denial of visitation would not be a defense to a Uniform Support of Dependents Law proceeding, where, as here, there exists no prior court order specifically fixing the terms of visitation (see, Griffin v Griffin, 89 AD2d 310). Rather, the proper procedure would be for the husband to move for a determination of visitation rights in Tennessee, which has jurisdiction over the child (see, Griffin v Griffin, supra; Matter of De Filipo v De Filipo, 45 AD2d 710). Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Thompson and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to the Uniform Support of Dependents Law (Domestic Relations Law art 3-A), the husband appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Auperin, J.), entered August 14, 1984, which, inter alia, fixed the amount of arrears of alimony and ordered the immediate resumption of alimony payments.

Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Since the Uniform Support of Dependents Law (Domestic Relations Law art 3-A) provides an additional or alternate means of enforcing the petitioner’s right to alimony (Domestic Relations Law § 41 [1]), the Family Court did not err in denying the husband’s motion to dismiss this proceeding on the ground that another action was pending for the same relief (cf. Nichols v Bardua, 74 AD2d 566; Clay v Clay, 54 AD2d 647). In addition, the court properly ruled that the denial of visitation would not be a defense to a Uniform Support of Dependents Law proceeding, where, as here, there exists no prior court order specifically fixing the terms of visitation (see, Griffin v Griffin, 89 AD2d 310). Rather, the proper procedure would be for the husband to move for a determination of visitation rights in Tennessee, which has jurisdiction over the child (see, Griffin v Griffin, supra; Matter of De Filipo v De Filipo, 45 AD2d 710). Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Thompson and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.2d 737, 498 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53012, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/minch-v-minch-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack