Nagle v. Cunningham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nagle v. Cunningham

61 A.D.2d 739, 401 N.Y.S.2d 796, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10113

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A.D.2d 739 (Nagle v. Cunningham) 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

Nagle v. Cunningham, 61 A.D.2d 739, 401 N.Y.S.2d 796, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10113 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered August 8, 1977, denying the appellant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. In 1963, the parties entered into a separation agreement providing, among other things, for the petitioner father to make payments of $600 per annum for support of the sole child, the custody of whom was given to the appellant wife. Some 13 years went by, during which the petitioner was abroad and made no payments nor visited the child. He now seeks visitation, and the appellant asks for an order of protection to enjoin the petitioner from communicating with the son, and a hearing is scheduled. Inasmuch as it is the best interest of the child with which we are concerned, we should not by summary judgment foreclose the possibility, however doubtful, that visitation might be beneficial. However, as evidence of the father’s good faith, it would be in order for the court to require that the payments for the support of the child, long past due, should be made. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Silverman, Evans, Lane and Sullivan, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered August 8, 1977, denying the appellant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. In 1963, the parties entered into a separation agreement providing, among other things, for the petitioner father to make payments of $600 per annum for support of the sole child, the custody of whom was given to the appellant wife. Some 13 years went by, during which the petitioner was abroad and made no payments nor visited the child. He now seeks visitation, and the appellant asks for an order of protection to enjoin the petitioner from communicating with the son, and a hearing is scheduled. Inasmuch as it is the best interest of the child with which we are concerned, we should not by summary judgment foreclose the possibility, however doubtful, that visitation might be beneficial. However, as evidence of the father’s good faith, it would be in order for the court to require that the payments for the support of the child, long past due, should be made. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Silverman, Evans, Lane and Sullivan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.2d 739, 401 N.Y.S.2d 796, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nagle-v-cunningham-nyappdiv-1978.