Sachs v. Wechsler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sachs v. Wechsler

84 A.D.2d 563, 444 N.Y.S.2d 875, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15639

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

DecidedOctober 19, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 84 A.D.2d 563 (Sachs v. Wechsler) 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

Sachs v. Wechsler, 84 A.D.2d 563, 444 N.Y.S.2d 875, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15639 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action in which the parties had previously been granted a dual divorce, plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Derounian, J.), entered June 24, 1980, as denied her motion, inter alia, to modify the divorce judgment with respect to the provisions for child support. Order modified, on the facts, by adding to the first decretal paragraph, after the word “denied”, the following: “except that defendant shall reimburse plaintiff for all sums paid by her on account of the $2,100 orthodontia bill for treatment of the infant issue, and shall pay the balance as due”. As so modified, order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Under the circumstances, plaintiff’s motion should have been granted to the extent indicated. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Thompson, JJ., concur.

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

In an action in which the parties had previously been granted a dual divorce, plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Derounian, J.), entered June 24, 1980, as denied her motion, inter alia, to modify the divorce judgment with respect to the provisions for child support. Order modified, on the facts, by adding to the first decretal paragraph, after the word “denied”, the following: “except that defendant shall reimburse plaintiff for all sums paid by her on account of the $2,100 orthodontia bill for treatment of the infant issue, and shall pay the balance as due”. As so modified, order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Under the circumstances, plaintiff’s motion should have been granted to the extent indicated. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 A.D.2d 563, 444 N.Y.S.2d 875, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sachs-v-wechsler-nyappdiv-1981.