Reader v. Reader

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reader v. Reader

264 A.D. 904, 36 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5317

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

DecidedJune 29, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D. 904 (Reader v. Reader) 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

Reader v. Reader, 264 A.D. 904, 36 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5317 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying plaintiff’s motion to modify the final judgment so as to increase the alimony payments provided therein, reversed on the facts, wdth ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the matter remitted to the Special Term for the purpose of taking testimony to ascertain respondent’s income and expenses, and determining, on the basis of such proof, whether or not an increase should be directed in the amount of alimony awarded, and if so, the extent of such increase. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur.

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

Order denying plaintiff’s motion to modify the final judgment so as to increase the alimony payments provided therein, reversed on the facts, wdth ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the matter remitted to the Special Term for the purpose of taking testimony to ascertain respondent’s income and expenses, and determining, on the basis of such proof, whether or not an increase should be directed in the amount of alimony awarded, and if so, the extent of such increase. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D. 904, 36 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reader-v-reader-nyappdiv-1942.