Slonimsky v. Slonimsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Slonimsky v. Slonimsky

10 A.D.2d 886, 200 N.Y.S.2d 895, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10516

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

DecidedApril 25, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 886 (Slonimsky v. Slonimsky) 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

Slonimsky v. Slonimsky, 10 A.D.2d 886, 200 N.Y.S.2d 895, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10516 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the husband from an order of the Domestic Relations Court of the City of New York, Family Court Division, Kings County, entered August 24, 1959, which directed him to pay $10 a week for the support of respondent, his wife, on the ground that she is likely to become a public charge (N. Y. City Dom. Rel. Ct. Act, § 137, subd. 4). Order reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and petition dismissed, without costs. Findings of fact insofar as they may be inconsistent herewith are reversed, and new findings are made as indicated herein. The proof does not show that the circumstances of the parties have changed, or that the petitioner is likely to become a public charge (see, e.g., Matter of Hamilton v. Hamilton, 254 App. Div. 748). Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the husband from an order of the Domestic Relations Court of the City of New York, Family Court Division, Kings County, entered August 24, 1959, which directed him to pay $10 a week for the support of respondent, his wife, on the ground that she is likely to become a public charge (N. Y. City Dom. Rel. Ct. Act, § 137, subd. 4). Order reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and petition dismissed, without costs. Findings of fact insofar as they may be inconsistent herewith are reversed, and new findings are made as indicated herein. The proof does not show that the circumstances of the parties have changed, or that the petitioner is likely to become a public charge (see, e.g., Matter of Hamilton v. Hamilton, 254 App. Div. 748). Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 886, 200 N.Y.S.2d 895, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slonimsky-v-slonimsky-nyappdiv-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack