Stroh v. Stroh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stroh v. Stroh

52 A.D.2d 844, 382 N.Y.S.2d 816, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12677

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

DecidedMay 3, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 52 A.D.2d 844 (Stroh v. Stroh) 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

Stroh v. Stroh, 52 A.D.2d 844, 382 N.Y.S.2d 816, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12677 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action in which the plaintiff wife was granted a judgment of divorce, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated December 31, 1975, which, inter alia, (1) adjudged him guilty of contempt of court and (2) denied his cross motion (a) for a downward modification of alimony and support and (b) for a partition of property. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and the motion and cross motion are remitted to Special Term for a hearing in accordance herewith. The papers in this case raise substantial questions of fact as to whether the financial position of the defendant had changed for the worse since the entry of the divorce judgment. Under these circumstances an evidentiary hearing should have been held on both the motion and cross motion (see Pirrotta v Pirrotta, 42 AD2d 715). Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham, Margett and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

In an action in which the plaintiff wife was granted a judgment of divorce, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated December 31, 1975, which, inter alia, (1) adjudged him guilty of contempt of court and (2) denied his cross motion (a) for a downward modification of alimony and support and (b) for a partition of property. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and the motion and cross motion are remitted to Special Term for a hearing in accordance herewith. The papers in this case raise substantial questions of fact as to whether the financial position of the defendant had changed for the worse since the entry of the divorce judgment. Under these circumstances an evidentiary hearing should have been held on both the motion and cross motion (see Pirrotta v Pirrotta, 42 AD2d 715). Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham, Margett and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 844, 382 N.Y.S.2d 816, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stroh-v-stroh-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack