Oltsik v. Oltsik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Oltsik v. Oltsik

228 A.D. 648

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 228 A.D. 648 (Oltsik v. Oltsik) 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

Oltsik v. Oltsik, 228 A.D. 648 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

— • Order modified by striking out the provision that the arrearage, amounting to $201, be fully paid on or before October 1, 1930, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. The motion was one to punish for contempt. Defendant asked for no affirmative relief and this provision in the order is, in the circumstances, unauthorized. (Barrett v. Barrett, 221 App. Div. 710.) Rich, Young, Seeger and Soudder, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P, J., dissents upon the ground that in his opinion defendant was clearly guilty of contempt and should have been punished accordingly.

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

— • Order modified by striking out the provision that the arrearage, amounting to $201, be fully paid on or before October 1, 1930, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. The motion was one to punish for contempt. Defendant asked for no affirmative relief and this provision in the order is, in the circumstances, unauthorized. (Barrett v. Barrett, 221 App. Div. 710.) Rich, Young, Seeger and Soudder, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P, J., dissents upon the ground that in his opinion defendant was clearly guilty of contempt and should have been punished accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D. 648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oltsik-v-oltsik-nyappdiv-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack