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

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

DecidedNovember 22, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 961 (Nogid v. Nogid) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 961, 388 N.Y.S.2d 646, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nogid-v-nogid-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack