Telaro v. Telaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Telaro v. Telaro

27 A.D.2d 750, 277 N.Y.S.2d 475, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4831

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 750 (Telaro v. Telaro) 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

Telaro v. Telaro, 27 A.D.2d 750, 277 N.Y.S.2d 475, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4831 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated February 23, 1966, modified, on the law and the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, by reducing the sum awarded to plaintiff for the support of herself and the infant issue of the marriage to $200 per week, to be allocated $150 for plaintiff and $25 for each child. As so modified, judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. Appeal from decision of said court dated February 15, 1966 dismissed, without costs. In our opinion, the support and maintenance awarded to plaintiff was excessive to the extent indicated. No separate appeal lies from a decision. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated February 23, 1966, modified, on the law and the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, by reducing the sum awarded to plaintiff for the support of herself and the infant issue of the marriage to $200 per week, to be allocated $150 for plaintiff and $25 for each child. As so modified, judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. Appeal from decision of said court dated February 15, 1966 dismissed, without costs. In our opinion, the support and maintenance awarded to plaintiff was excessive to the extent indicated. No separate appeal lies from a decision. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 750, 277 N.Y.S.2d 475, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/telaro-v-telaro-nyappdiv-1967.