Siragusa v. Siragusa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Siragusa v. Siragusa

30 A.D.2d 707, 292 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3669

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

DecidedJune 24, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 707 (Siragusa v. Siragusa) 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

Siragusa v. Siragusa, 30 A.D.2d 707, 292 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3669 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for separation, the appeal is by the defendant wife, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 11, 1968, as awarded custody of the infant son of the parties to plaintiff and awarded defendant $30 a week for support of herself and the infant daughter of the parties. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. In our opinion, the Special Term did not abuse its discretion in continuing temporary custody of the infant son in plaintiff and in fixing the amount for support of plaintiff and the infant daughter at the rate previously fixed by the support order of the Family Court. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for separation, the appeal is by the defendant wife, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 11, 1968, as awarded custody of the infant son of the parties to plaintiff and awarded defendant $30 a week for support of herself and the infant daughter of the parties. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. In our opinion, the Special Term did not abuse its discretion in continuing temporary custody of the infant son in plaintiff and in fixing the amount for support of plaintiff and the infant daughter at the rate previously fixed by the support order of the Family Court. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 707, 292 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siragusa-v-siragusa-nyappdiv-1968.