Seevers v. Seevers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seevers v. Seevers

120 A.D.2d 660, 502 N.Y.S.2d 405, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56761

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

DecidedMay 19, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 120 A.D.2d 660 (Seevers v. Seevers) 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

Seevers v. Seevers, 120 A.D.2d 660, 502 N.Y.S.2d 405, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56761 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), entered December 18, 1984, which, after a hearing, dismissed her petition.

Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, and petition granted to the extent that the respondent is directed to pay the petitioner $20 per week for [661]*661her support, to commence on the Friday next succeeding the date of service upon him of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry.

Based upon the entire record, we believe that the petitioner should have been granted some support notwithstanding the respondent’s poor health and limited pension income. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Niehoff, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

— In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), entered December 18, 1984, which, after a hearing, dismissed her petition.

Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, and petition granted to the extent that the respondent is directed to pay the petitioner $20 per week for [661]*661her support, to commence on the Friday next succeeding the date of service upon him of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry.

Based upon the entire record, we believe that the petitioner should have been granted some support notwithstanding the respondent’s poor health and limited pension income. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Niehoff, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.2d 660, 502 N.Y.S.2d 405, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seevers-v-seevers-nyappdiv-1986.