Shkolnik v. Shkolnik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shkolnik v. Shkolnik

52 A.D.2d 817, 383 N.Y.S.2d 362, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12631

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

DecidedMay 25, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 A.D.2d 817 (Shkolnik v. Shkolnik) 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

Shkolnik v. Shkolnik, 52 A.D.2d 817, 383 N.Y.S.2d 362, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12631 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on November 28, 1975, granting defendant wife’s application to hold the plaintiff husband in contempt and committing him to jail, having been superseded by a resettled order, entered on February 26, 1976, is unaniinously dismissed. The resettled order is unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Grumet, J., at Special Term, with one bill of $40 costs and disbursements of these appeals to respondent. Appellant’s claim that his constitutional right to due process and equal protection of the law was violated because he was fined and ordered committed without having been granted the full evidentiary hearing he sought is insubstantial not only for the reasons expressed in Walker v Walker (51 AD2d 1029) but more importantly because such a hearing was held some two years earlier and he offers nothing but conclusory statements that his financial condition has since worsened. Having raised no genuine issue as to his ability to pay, there was no requirement that he be afforded a further hearing. (Agur v Wilson, 498 F2d 961.) Concur —Markewich, J. P., Lupiano, Silverman, Nunez and Yesawich, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on November 28, 1975, granting defendant wife’s application to hold the plaintiff husband in contempt and committing him to jail, having been superseded by a resettled order, entered on February 26, 1976, is unaniinously dismissed. The resettled order is unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Grumet, J., at Special Term, with one bill of $40 costs and disbursements of these appeals to respondent. Appellant’s claim that his constitutional right to due process and equal protection of the law was violated because he was fined and ordered committed without having been granted the full evidentiary hearing he sought is insubstantial not only for the reasons expressed in Walker v Walker (51 AD2d 1029) but more importantly because such a hearing was held some two years earlier and he offers nothing but conclusory statements that his financial condition has since worsened. Having raised no genuine issue as to his ability to pay, there was no requirement that he be afforded a further hearing. (Agur v Wilson, 498 F2d 961.) Concur —Markewich, J. P., Lupiano, Silverman, Nunez and Yesawich, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 817, 383 N.Y.S.2d 362, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shkolnik-v-shkolnik-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack