Palmer v. Palmer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Palmer v. Palmer

23 A.D.2d 643, 257 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4715

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 643 (Palmer v. Palmer) 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

Palmer v. Palmer, 23 A.D.2d 643, 257 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4715 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Resettled order, entered on September 16, 1964, denying plaintiff’s motion to enter a money judgment in her favor against defendant in the sum of $9,985 for unpaid alimony arrears and for other relief, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of directing the entry of said judgment, and as so modified, affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant. The record indicates that defendant has been contumaciously flouting the decree herein. He has indulged himself in travel and made a gift of securities while permitting alimony arrears to accumulate. It is undisputed that this aged plaintiff is suffering from diabetes and cataracts. The record fails to justify the denial of the entry of judgment and such denial in our opinion was an unwise exercise of discretion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

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

Resettled order, entered on September 16, 1964, denying plaintiff’s motion to enter a money judgment in her favor against defendant in the sum of $9,985 for unpaid alimony arrears and for other relief, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of directing the entry of said judgment, and as so modified, affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant. The record indicates that defendant has been contumaciously flouting the decree herein. He has indulged himself in travel and made a gift of securities while permitting alimony arrears to accumulate. It is undisputed that this aged plaintiff is suffering from diabetes and cataracts. The record fails to justify the denial of the entry of judgment and such denial in our opinion was an unwise exercise of discretion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 643, 257 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmer-v-palmer-nyappdiv-1965.