Olstein v. Olstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Olstein v. Olstein

283 A.D.2d 257, 724 N.Y.S.2d 612, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5064

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Olstein v. Olstein. Read the opinion of the Court — 309 A.D.2d 697 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 15, 2001·Published

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Drager, J.), entered on or about September 11, 2000, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, held plaintiff’s motion for an order eliminating his maintenance obligation and for a judgment for $111,000, representing allegedly overpaid maintenance, in abeyance and referred the matter to a referee, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about February 22, 2000, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the order of September 11, 2000.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant, his former wife, has remarried and that, by reason of her remarriage, his maintenance obligation terminated. In view, however, of defendant’s express denial of the alleged remarriage, a factual issue was presented and the matter was appropriately referred to a referee for resolution. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Drager, J.), entered on or about September 11, 2000, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, held plaintiff’s motion for an order eliminating his maintenance obligation and for a judgment for $111,000, representing allegedly overpaid maintenance, in abeyance and referred the matter to a referee, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about February 22, 2000, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the order of September 11, 2000.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant, his former wife, has remarried and that, by reason of her remarriage, his maintenance obligation terminated. In view, however, of defendant’s express denial of the alleged remarriage, a factual issue was presented and the matter was appropriately referred to a referee for resolution. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Olstein v. Olstein, 283 A.D.2d 257, 724 N.Y.S.2d 612, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5064 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

283 A.D.2d 257 (Olstein v. Olstein) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.