Oreste v. Oreste

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Oreste v. Oreste

27 A.D.2d 560, 277 N.Y.S.2d 608, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2833

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

DecidedDecember 19, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 27 A.D.2d 560 (Oreste v. Oreste) 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

Oreste v. Oreste, 27 A.D.2d 560, 277 N.Y.S.2d 608, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2833 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 14, 1966, reversed insofar as appealed from, in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the motion and cross motion are remitted to Special Term for (1) a plenary hearing as to the present financial resources and needs of the parties and all other facts relevant to whether any modifications of the alimony and support provisions of the judgment are warranted and (2) a determination de novo upon those issues. In our opinion, the conflicting affidavits submitted by the parties are insufficient to support a proper determination and a hearing must [561]*561be held to develop all the relevant facts (cf. Alpert V. Alpert, 20 A D 2d 560; Peters v. Peters, 14 A D 2d 778; Sloan v. Sloan, 286 App. Div. 1102). Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

— Order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 14, 1966, reversed insofar as appealed from, in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the motion and cross motion are remitted to Special Term for (1) a plenary hearing as to the present financial resources and needs of the parties and all other facts relevant to whether any modifications of the alimony and support provisions of the judgment are warranted and (2) a determination de novo upon those issues. In our opinion, the conflicting affidavits submitted by the parties are insufficient to support a proper determination and a hearing must [561]*561be held to develop all the relevant facts (cf. Alpert V. Alpert, 20 A D 2d 560; Peters v. Peters, 14 A D 2d 778; Sloan v. Sloan, 286 App. Div. 1102). Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 560, 277 N.Y.S.2d 608, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oreste-v-oreste-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack