Potak v. Potak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Potak v. Potak

26 A.D.2d 950, 274 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3036

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

DecidedNovember 21, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 950 (Potak v. Potak) 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

Potak v. Potak, 26 A.D.2d 950, 274 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3036 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding under subdivision (e) of section 466 of the Family Court Act to enforce the support provisions of a foreign decree which terminated the marriage of the parties to this proceeding, the former husband appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, entered May 17, 1966, which (1) denied his motion to dismiss the petition, (2) directed him to comply with the provisions of such decree, i.e., to pay $100 a week to petitioner for her support and for support of the parties’ child and (3) further directed him to pay $10 a week on account of arrears in such support obligations and a $500 counsel fee to petitioner’s attorney, at the rate of $50 a week. Order modified, in the exercise of discretion and on the law and on the facts, by reducing the amount of the counsel fee to $350. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. The findings of fact which are inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings are made as indicated herein. We find that the amount of the counsel fee as awarded was excessive to the extent indicated. In our opinion, the amendment to subdivision (c) of section 466 of the Family Court Act (L. 1965, ch. 355) is valid when applied to foreign decrees entered prior to September 1, 1965, the effective date of the amendment (cf. I. L. F. Y. Co. v. Temporary State Housing Rent Comm., 10 N Y 2d 263, 270; Preston Co. v. Funkhouser, 261 N. Y. 140, 144; Myer v. Myer, 271 App. Div. 465, 474, affd. 296 N. Y. 979; Shielcrawt V. Moffett, 294 N. Y. 180, 188). We find no merit in appellant’s other contentions. Christ, Acting P. J., Hill, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding under subdivision (e) of section 466 of the Family Court Act to enforce the support provisions of a foreign decree which terminated the marriage of the parties to this proceeding, the former husband appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, entered May 17, 1966, which (1) denied his motion to dismiss the petition, (2) directed him to comply with the provisions of such decree, i.e., to pay $100 a week to petitioner for her support and for support of the parties’ child and (3) further directed him to pay $10 a week on account of arrears in such support obligations and a $500 counsel fee to petitioner’s attorney, at the rate of $50 a week. Order modified, in the exercise of discretion and on the law and on the facts, by reducing the amount of the counsel fee to $350. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. The findings of fact which are inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings are made as indicated herein. We find that the amount of the counsel fee as awarded was excessive to the extent indicated. In our opinion, the amendment to subdivision (c) of section 466 of the Family Court Act (L. 1965, ch. 355) is valid when applied to foreign decrees entered prior to September 1, 1965, the effective date of the amendment (cf. I. L. F. Y. Co. v. Temporary State Housing Rent Comm., 10 N Y 2d 263, 270; Preston Co. v. Funkhouser, 261 N. Y. 140, 144; Myer v. Myer, 271 App. Div. 465, 474, affd. 296 N. Y. 979; Shielcrawt V. Moffett, 294 N. Y. 180, 188). We find no merit in appellant’s other contentions. Christ, Acting P. J., Hill, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 950, 274 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3036, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/potak-v-potak-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack