Seaman v. Seaman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seaman v. Seaman

30 A.D.2d 647, 291 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3767

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

DecidedJune 11, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 647 (Seaman v. Seaman) 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

Seaman v. Seaman, 30 A.D.2d 647, 291 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3767 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered January 31, 1968, in so far as appealed from, unanimously reversed, on the facts and the law, without costs and without disbursements, and motion denied. The order modified a prior judgment for support and maintenance by increasing the sum from $75 to $150 per week. The evidence of defendant’s earnings as a lawyer is not controverted by any proof and is supported by the incontestable facts showing defendant’s financial embarrassment. The apparent basis of decision is that defendant appears to be a reasonably competent lawyer and as such should earn more. But, as far as the record shows, he does not. Concur—Stevens, J. P., Steuer, McGivern and Rabin, JJ.

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

Order entered January 31, 1968, in so far as appealed from, unanimously reversed, on the facts and the law, without costs and without disbursements, and motion denied. The order modified a prior judgment for support and maintenance by increasing the sum from $75 to $150 per week. The evidence of defendant’s earnings as a lawyer is not controverted by any proof and is supported by the incontestable facts showing defendant’s financial embarrassment. The apparent basis of decision is that defendant appears to be a reasonably competent lawyer and as such should earn more. But, as far as the record shows, he does not. Concur—Stevens, J. P., Steuer, McGivern and Rabin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 647, 291 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seaman-v-seaman-nyappdiv-1968.