Parker v. Parker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Parker v. Parker

58 A.D.2d 893, 397 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13077

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

DecidedJuly 25, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 58 A.D.2d 893 (Parker v. Parker) 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

Parker v. Parker, 58 A.D.2d 893, 397 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13077 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated September 24, 1976, which, after a hearing, found the appellant husband in willful violation of a prior order of support and directed that he be committed to the Westchester County Penitentiary for a period of 90 days, and stayed the commitment on condition that he pay $180 per week as support, plus arrears in the total amount of $5,470. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The determination of the Family Court is amply supported by the record. That court did not abuse its discretion by proceeding with the hearing even though the wife had failed, technically, to comply fully with a prior order of disclosure. Latham, J. P., Rabin, Titone and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated September 24, 1976, which, after a hearing, found the appellant husband in willful violation of a prior order of support and directed that he be committed to the Westchester County Penitentiary for a period of 90 days, and stayed the commitment on condition that he pay $180 per week as support, plus arrears in the total amount of $5,470. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The determination of the Family Court is amply supported by the record. That court did not abuse its discretion by proceeding with the hearing even though the wife had failed, technically, to comply fully with a prior order of disclosure. Latham, J. P., Rabin, Titone and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.2d 893, 397 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13077, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parker-v-parker-nyappdiv-1977.