Pail v. Meydan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pail v. Meydan

280 A.D.2d 332, 719 N.Y.S.2d 863, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1352

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

DecidedFebruary 8, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D.2d 332 (Pail v. Meydan) 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

Pail v. Meydan, 280 A.D.2d 332, 719 N.Y.S.2d 863, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1352 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin Diamond, J.), entered on or about December 7, 1999, which, inter alia, ordered that a discovery schedule and hearing date be set on the issue of child support, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[333]*333Under the circumstances at bar, discovery and a hearing respecting the adequacy of child support provision contained in the parties’ separation agreement are appropriate. To the extent, if any, that the separation agreement is found to have made inadequate provision for the parties’ children, it is voidable and may not be utilized as a bar to judicial remediation (see, Harriman v Harriman, 227 AD2d 839; Priolo v Priolo, 211 AD2d 627, lv denied 86 NY2d 705).

We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J. P., Andrias, Ellerin, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin Diamond, J.), entered on or about December 7, 1999, which, inter alia, ordered that a discovery schedule and hearing date be set on the issue of child support, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[333]*333Under the circumstances at bar, discovery and a hearing respecting the adequacy of child support provision contained in the parties’ separation agreement are appropriate. To the extent, if any, that the separation agreement is found to have made inadequate provision for the parties’ children, it is voidable and may not be utilized as a bar to judicial remediation (see, Harriman v Harriman, 227 AD2d 839; Priolo v Priolo, 211 AD2d 627, lv denied 86 NY2d 705).

We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J. P., Andrias, Ellerin, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 332, 719 N.Y.S.2d 863, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pail-v-meydan-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack