Pezzella v. Pezzella

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pezzella v. Pezzella

280 A.D. 835, 113 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3860

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

DecidedJune 30, 1952

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 280 A.D. 835 (Pezzella v. Pezzella) 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

Pezzella v. Pezzella, 280 A.D. 835, 113 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3860 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action in which a judgment of divorce was granted in favor of plaintiff on the 28tn day of May, 1946, defendant appeals from an order (1) denying his motion to punish plaintiff for contempt of court for her failure to comply with the provisions of said judgment pertaining to custody of the children of the parties; and (2) referring the matter to an official referee to hear and determine, as an [836]*836application for modification of said custody provisions. Order modified by striking from the second ordering paragraph thereof the word “ determine ” and by substituting in place thereof the word “ report ”. As so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs. The burden of determination should, in this case at least, remain with the Special Term. Carswell, Acting P. J., Adel, Wenzel, MacCrate and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

In an action in which a judgment of divorce was granted in favor of plaintiff on the 28tn day of May, 1946, defendant appeals from an order (1) denying his motion to punish plaintiff for contempt of court for her failure to comply with the provisions of said judgment pertaining to custody of the children of the parties; and (2) referring the matter to an official referee to hear and determine, as an [836]*836application for modification of said custody provisions. Order modified by striking from the second ordering paragraph thereof the word “ determine ” and by substituting in place thereof the word “ report ”. As so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs. The burden of determination should, in this case at least, remain with the Special Term. Carswell, Acting P. J., Adel, Wenzel, MacCrate and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D. 835, 113 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pezzella-v-pezzella-nyappdiv-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack