O'Malley v. O'Malley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Malley v. O'Malley

67 A.D.2d 680, 411 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10271

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 67 A.D.2d 680 (O'Malley v. O'Malley) 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

O'Malley v. O'Malley, 67 A.D.2d 680, 411 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10271 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a matrimonial action in which the defendant wife was granted a judgment of divorce, she appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated November 14, 1977, which denied her motion to, inter alia, increase the monthly support being paid by the plaintiff for the parties’ two children. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and action remitted to Special Term for a hearing and a new determination in accordance herewith. Upon the disputed facts in this case, the questions involved should not have been decided without a hearing. A hearing is required to afford adequate opportunity for examination and cross-examination of witnesses and for evaluation of the documents produced. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and Shapiro, 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 defendant wife was granted a judgment of divorce, she appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated November 14, 1977, which denied her motion to, inter alia, increase the monthly support being paid by the plaintiff for the parties’ two children. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and action remitted to Special Term for a hearing and a new determination in accordance herewith. Upon the disputed facts in this case, the questions involved should not have been decided without a hearing. A hearing is required to afford adequate opportunity for examination and cross-examination of witnesses and for evaluation of the documents produced. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.2d 680, 411 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/omalley-v-omalley-nyappdiv-1979.