Shapiro v. Shapiro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shapiro v. Shapiro

20 A.D.2d 920, 249 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4014

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

DecidedApril 20, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 920 (Shapiro v. Shapiro) 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

Shapiro v. Shapiro, 20 A.D.2d 920, 249 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4014 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action for a judicial separation, in which a final judgment was entered November 21, 1930 in favor of the plaintiff wife, the defendant husband appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 30, 1963, as granted plaintiff’s motion to modify the judgment by adding a direction that the defendant shall pay the sum of $500 for the dental work required by plaintiff. Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, without costs; and motion insofar as it relates to the dental work, denied without prejudice to renewal on proper proof as indicated herein. The record before us fails to disclose any factual basis for the Special Term’s exercise of its discretion in modifying the judgment by directing the husband to pay for the dental work which the wife claims she requires. In the absence of such proof, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to modify the existing judgment (Newcomb v. Newcomb, 281 App. Div. 689, and eases there cited; Bernstein v. Bernstein, 282 App. Div. 30). Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action for a judicial separation, in which a final judgment was entered November 21, 1930 in favor of the plaintiff wife, the defendant husband appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 30, 1963, as granted plaintiff’s motion to modify the judgment by adding a direction that the defendant shall pay the sum of $500 for the dental work required by plaintiff. Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, without costs; and motion insofar as it relates to the dental work, denied without prejudice to renewal on proper proof as indicated herein. The record before us fails to disclose any factual basis for the Special Term’s exercise of its discretion in modifying the judgment by directing the husband to pay for the dental work which the wife claims she requires. In the absence of such proof, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to modify the existing judgment (Newcomb v. Newcomb, 281 App. Div. 689, and eases there cited; Bernstein v. Bernstein, 282 App. Div. 30). Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 920, 249 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4014, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shapiro-v-shapiro-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack