Oster v. Oster

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Oster v. Oster

54 A.D.2d 584, 387 N.Y.S.2d 157, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13943

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 584 (Oster v. Oster) 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

Oster v. Oster, 54 A.D.2d 584, 387 N.Y.S.2d 157, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13943 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

. In asupport proceeding pursuant to article 4 of the Family Court Act, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated July 31, 1975, which, after a hearing, inter alia, directed the entry of a money judgment for arrears. Order affirmed, with costs. Appellant, who was subject to the Family Court’s jurisdiction at the commencement of the support proceeding, did not escape such jurisdiction by moving to another State. Here, unlike the situation in Wasserman v Wasserman (43 AD2d 951), the Family Court had personal jurisdiction over appellant at the time he was served with notice of the present motion. Personal service within the State was therefore not a jurisdictional necessity and the personal service upon him in Connecticut did not exceed the Family Court’s authority under [585]*585section 154 of the Family Court Act. The record indicates that the Family Court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s request for an adjournment; it properly denied his request to testify as to matters decided at a previous hearing, but allowed appellant to present his case relating to the issues then before the court. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan, Damiani and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

. In asupport proceeding pursuant to article 4 of the Family Court Act, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated July 31, 1975, which, after a hearing, inter alia, directed the entry of a money judgment for arrears. Order affirmed, with costs. Appellant, who was subject to the Family Court’s jurisdiction at the commencement of the support proceeding, did not escape such jurisdiction by moving to another State. Here, unlike the situation in Wasserman v Wasserman (43 AD2d 951), the Family Court had personal jurisdiction over appellant at the time he was served with notice of the present motion. Personal service within the State was therefore not a jurisdictional necessity and the personal service upon him in Connecticut did not exceed the Family Court’s authority under [585]*585section 154 of the Family Court Act. The record indicates that the Family Court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s request for an adjournment; it properly denied his request to testify as to matters decided at a previous hearing, but allowed appellant to present his case relating to the issues then before the court. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan, Damiani and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 584, 387 N.Y.S.2d 157, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oster-v-oster-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack