Nogid v. Nogid

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nogid v. Nogid

54 A.D.2d 961, 388 N.Y.S.2d 646, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14877

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 22, 1976·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the plaintiff wife had been granted a judgment of divorce, defendant appeals from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 1, 1976, which resettled a prior order of the same court, dated March 9, 1976, and, inter alia, directed (1) the production of certain records and (2) a hearing on pending motions for upward and downward modification of the alimony and support provisions contained in the said judgment. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. Defendant has not clearly demonstrated that the issues of support and alimony can be resolved on motion papers (see Sarnicola v Sarnicola, 50 AD2d 842; Matter of Garritano v Garritano, 49 AD2d 906). In the absence of compelling proof, a hearing is necessary (cf. Casóla v Casóla, 235 NYS2d 495). Further, the direction for further disclosure was not improper (see Domestic Relations Law, § 250; CPLR 3101; Perse v Perse, 52 AD2d 60). Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello and Suozzi, 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 plaintiff wife had been granted a judgment of divorce, defendant appeals from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 1, 1976, which resettled a prior order of the same court, dated March 9, 1976, and, inter alia, directed (1) the production of certain records and (2) a hearing on pending motions for upward and downward modification of the alimony and support provisions contained in the said judgment. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. Defendant has not clearly demonstrated that the issues of support and alimony can be resolved on motion papers (see Sarnicola v Sarnicola, 50 AD2d 842; Matter of Garritano v Garritano, 49 AD2d 906). In the absence of compelling proof, a hearing is necessary (cf. Casóla v Casóla, 235 NYS2d 495). Further, the direction for further disclosure was not improper (see Domestic Relations Law, § 250; CPLR 3101; Perse v Perse, 52 AD2d 60). Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

Nogid v. Nogid, 54 A.D.2d 961, 388 N.Y.S.2d 646, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14877 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

54 A.D.2d 961 (Nogid v. Nogid) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related