Teitelbaum v. TeitelbAum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Teitelbaum v. TeitelbAum

58 A.D.2d 653, 396 N.Y.S.2d 69, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12738

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

DecidedJune 27, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 58 A.D.2d 653 (Teitelbaum v. TeitelbAum) 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

Teitelbaum v. TeitelbAum, 58 A.D.2d 653, 396 N.Y.S.2d 69, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12738 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a support proceeding, in which the petitioner father sought to suspend his obligation to pay child support, he appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated November 5, 1976, which, after a hearing, inter alia, failed to suspend child support payments, but reduced the amount thereof to $25 per week. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The Family Court did not abuse its discretion when it failed to grant the petition to suspend child support payments. Petitioner’s argument that sections 413 and 414 of the Family Court Act are unconstitutional need not be addressed on this appeal (see Bauer v Bauer, 55 AD2d 895). Latham, J. P., Shapiro, Hawkins and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

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

— In a support proceeding, in which the petitioner father sought to suspend his obligation to pay child support, he appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated November 5, 1976, which, after a hearing, inter alia, failed to suspend child support payments, but reduced the amount thereof to $25 per week. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The Family Court did not abuse its discretion when it failed to grant the petition to suspend child support payments. Petitioner’s argument that sections 413 and 414 of the Family Court Act are unconstitutional need not be addressed on this appeal (see Bauer v Bauer, 55 AD2d 895). Latham, J. P., Shapiro, Hawkins and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.2d 653, 396 N.Y.S.2d 69, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teitelbaum-v-teitelbaum-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack