Nelson v. Nelson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nelson v. Nelson

249 A.D. 849, 292 N.Y.S. 519, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9984

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D. 849 (Nelson v. Nelson) 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

Nelson v. Nelson, 249 A.D. 849, 292 N.Y.S. 519, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9984 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Order confirming report of official referee considered as a reference to hear and report [850]*850with his opinion, and amending and modifying final decree of divorce to direct payment of alimony in the amount of sixty-five dollars per month, reversed on the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with leave to defendant to renew the motion if change of circumstances is shown. The defendant did not establish satisfactorily the fact that his income has been reduced since the judgment was granted. On the contrary, it appears that his property interests have increased. The earnings of the plaintiff have decreased somewhat. The plaintiff seems to be a person without sense of thrift. Had she possessed it, her future security would not have been imperiled by this proceeding, which resulted in a finding by the official referee that the amount of alimony should be reduced, which was also the determination at Special Term. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Davis, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Order confirming report of official referee considered as a reference to hear and report [850]*850with his opinion, and amending and modifying final decree of divorce to direct payment of alimony in the amount of sixty-five dollars per month, reversed on the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with leave to defendant to renew the motion if change of circumstances is shown. The defendant did not establish satisfactorily the fact that his income has been reduced since the judgment was granted. On the contrary, it appears that his property interests have increased. The earnings of the plaintiff have decreased somewhat. The plaintiff seems to be a person without sense of thrift. Had she possessed it, her future security would not have been imperiled by this proceeding, which resulted in a finding by the official referee that the amount of alimony should be reduced, which was also the determination at Special Term. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Davis, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D. 849, 292 N.Y.S. 519, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9984, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nelson-v-nelson-nyappdiv-1937.