Toliver v. Toliver

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Toliver v. Toliver

67 A.D.2d 971, 413 N.Y.S.2d 454, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10761

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 67 A.D.2d 971 (Toliver v. Toliver) 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

Toliver v. Toliver, 67 A.D.2d 971, 413 N.Y.S.2d 454, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10761 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered May 10, 1978, which, after a hearing, inter alia, (1) granted the defendant husband’s motion for a downward modifica[972]*972tion of the alimony and child support provisions of the judgment of divorce and (2) denied her motion for an order pursuant to section 49-b of the Personal Property Law. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Our review of the record supports the court’s finding that the respondent husband’s loss of overtime salary constituted a sufficient change of circumstances warranting a downward modification of the alimony and child support provisions of the judgment of divorce (see Farino v Farino, 63 AD2d 691, mot for lv to app den 45 NY2d 710). We have considered the other contentions of the appellant and find them to be without merit. Damiani, J. P., Suozzi, Lazer and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

— In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered May 10, 1978, which, after a hearing, inter alia, (1) granted the defendant husband’s motion for a downward modifica[972]*972tion of the alimony and child support provisions of the judgment of divorce and (2) denied her motion for an order pursuant to section 49-b of the Personal Property Law. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Our review of the record supports the court’s finding that the respondent husband’s loss of overtime salary constituted a sufficient change of circumstances warranting a downward modification of the alimony and child support provisions of the judgment of divorce (see Farino v Farino, 63 AD2d 691, mot for lv to app den 45 NY2d 710). We have considered the other contentions of the appellant and find them to be without merit. Damiani, J. P., Suozzi, Lazer and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.2d 971, 413 N.Y.S.2d 454, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toliver-v-toliver-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack