Sloan v. Sloan

29 A.D.2d 571, 286 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2640
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 29, 1967
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 29 A.D.2d 571 (Sloan v. Sloan) 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
Sloan v. Sloan, 29 A.D.2d 571, 286 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2640 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Opinion

In an action for separation, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Bangs County, dated May 3, 1966, which granted in part and denied in part her motion to modify an amended decree of separation dated March 21, 1956 and for a counsel fee. Order modified, on the law and the facts, by striking out the first and fourth decretal paragraphs thereof, which respectively increased the award of alimony from $135 a week to $150 a week and allowed plaintiff a counsel fee of $150; order affirmed as so modified, without costs; and motion, insofar as it is to increase alimony and for a counsel fee, remitted to the Special Term (1) for a plenary hearing as to the present financial resources and needs of the parties and all other facts relevant to whether any increase in alimony is warranted and, if so, in what amount, and (2) for the purpose of making a determination de nova, on the basis of all the proof adduced, of plaintiff’s motion insofar as it is to increase alimony and for a counsel fee. In our opinion, the conflicting affidavits submitted by the parties are insufficient to support a proper determination on the merits of plaintiff’s motion insofar as it is for an increase in alimony and for a counsel fee. Therefore, a hearing must be held to develop all the facts relevant thereto (cf. Sloan v. Sloan, 286 [572]*572App. Div. 1102; Alpert v. Alpert, 20 A D 2d 650; Oreste v. Oreste, 27 A D 2d 560). The motion was properly denied insofar as it sought to accelerate the unpaid balance of the fine previously imposed. Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Ruth v. Ruth
52 A.D.2d 1086 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 A.D.2d 571, 286 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sloan-v-sloan-nyappdiv-1967.