Siegel v. Siegel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Siegel v. Siegel

75 A.D.2d 891, 428 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11536

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

DecidedMay 27, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 75 A.D.2d 891 (Siegel v. Siegel) 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

Siegel v. Siegel, 75 A.D.2d 891, 428 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11536 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated June 1, 1979, which, inter alia, held him in contempt and awarded arrears of alimony and a counsel fee to plaintiff. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Defendant’s contention that the order of Special Term holding him in contempt and requiring that he pay $8,400 in arrears was improper, in that he was not granted an evidentiary hearing, is without merit. A full hearing concerning defendant’s financial ability to comply with the divorce decree was held seven months prior to the application for an order holding him in contempt, and defendant has not raised a genuine issue as to his ability to comply with the prior judgment and orders of the Supreme Court (see Passonno v Passonno, 73 AD2d 718; Shkolnik v Shkolnik, 52 AD2d 817). We have considered the remaining contentions of defendant and find them to be without merit. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Margett and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated June 1, 1979, which, inter alia, held him in contempt and awarded arrears of alimony and a counsel fee to plaintiff. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Defendant’s contention that the order of Special Term holding him in contempt and requiring that he pay $8,400 in arrears was improper, in that he was not granted an evidentiary hearing, is without merit. A full hearing concerning defendant’s financial ability to comply with the divorce decree was held seven months prior to the application for an order holding him in contempt, and defendant has not raised a genuine issue as to his ability to comply with the prior judgment and orders of the Supreme Court (see Passonno v Passonno, 73 AD2d 718; Shkolnik v Shkolnik, 52 AD2d 817). We have considered the remaining contentions of defendant and find them to be without merit. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Margett and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 A.D.2d 891, 428 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siegel-v-siegel-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack