Panek v. Panek

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Panek v. Panek

45 A.D.2d 712, 356 N.Y.S.2d 332, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4832

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

DecidedJune 3, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 45 A.D.2d 712 (Panek v. Panek) 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

Panek v. Panek, 45 A.D.2d 712, 356 N.Y.S.2d 332, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4832 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding for an upward modification of a prior support order, petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County, dated December 20, 1973, which, after a hearing, dismissed the petition. Order reversed, on the law and in the interests of justice, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the Family Court (1) for a new hearing, at which there shall be full exploration of appellant’s present physical condition, employability and earning power, and further consideration of respondent’s present financial capability and (2) for a new determination. The questions of fact were not considered on this appeal. In our opinion, and in the light of an inadequate record, another hearing is required to develop all the facts on which an appropriate determination can be reached as to whether or not the present support provision should be increased. Gulotta, P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding for an upward modification of a prior support order, petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County, dated December 20, 1973, which, after a hearing, dismissed the petition. Order reversed, on the law and in the interests of justice, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the Family Court (1) for a new hearing, at which there shall be full exploration of appellant’s present physical condition, employability and earning power, and further consideration of respondent’s present financial capability and (2) for a new determination. The questions of fact were not considered on this appeal. In our opinion, and in the light of an inadequate record, another hearing is required to develop all the facts on which an appropriate determination can be reached as to whether or not the present support provision should be increased. Gulotta, P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.2d 712, 356 N.Y.S.2d 332, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/panek-v-panek-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack