Home/New York Court of Appeals/Rubin v. Rubin

Rubin v. Rubin

504 N.E.2d 691, 69 N.Y.2d 702, 512 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 21310
New York Court of Appeals·Decided December 19, 1986·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in so much of the opinion by Justice J. Robert Lynch at the Appellate Division as pertains to the requested upward modification of child [705]*705support (119 AD2d 152; see also, Merl v Merl, 67 NY2d 359, 362). We note that the argument based on the increase in defendant’s wealth is not before us. Neither the trial court nor the majority at the Appellate Division made a finding with respect to this factor. No issue with respect to attorneys’ fees is presented to this court.

Concur: Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr.

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

Rubin v. Rubin, 504 N.E.2d 691, 69 N.Y.2d 702, 512 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 21310 (N.Y. 1986).

504 N.E.2d 691 (Rubin v. Rubin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Schapiro v. Schapiro
204 A.D.2d 87 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Hulik v. Hulik
201 A.D.2d 909 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Kremler v. Kremler
199 A.D.2d 901 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Plumb v. Plumb
159 Misc. 2d 880 (New York Supreme Court, 1993)
Lawrence v. Lawrence
187 A.D.2d 995 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Szczygiel v. Szczygiel
153 Misc. 2d 411 (New York Supreme Court, 1991)
Belsky v. Belsky
172 A.D.2d 576 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Neckers v. Neckers
160 A.D.2d 693 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)