Tomashek v. Tomashek

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tomashek v. Tomashek

78 A.D.2d 936, 433 N.Y.S.2d 223, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13702

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 78 A.D.2d 936 (Tomashek v. Tomashek) 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

Tomashek v. Tomashek, 78 A.D.2d 936, 433 N.Y.S.2d 223, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13702 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Broome County, entered February 19,1980, which modified a prior order of the court. The Family Court modified a prior support order and directed the appellant to pay for “all medical, dental, and drug expenses of the three children of the parties not covered by insurance”. The prior order had simply incorporated a separation agreement specifically requiring the appellant to provide medical insurance coverage for the children. The appellant’s allegations of error are not persuasive. The record discloses sufficient evidence to support the necessity of a modification and the appellant has no basis for a claim of financial hardship. (See Matter of Bachman v Carro, 67 AD2d 1030; Yeackel v Lindstead, 67 AD2d 755.) Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Broome County, entered February 19,1980, which modified a prior order of the court. The Family Court modified a prior support order and directed the appellant to pay for “all medical, dental, and drug expenses of the three children of the parties not covered by insurance”. The prior order had simply incorporated a separation agreement specifically requiring the appellant to provide medical insurance coverage for the children. The appellant’s allegations of error are not persuasive. The record discloses sufficient evidence to support the necessity of a modification and the appellant has no basis for a claim of financial hardship. (See Matter of Bachman v Carro, 67 AD2d 1030; Yeackel v Lindstead, 67 AD2d 755.) Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.2d 936, 433 N.Y.S.2d 223, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tomashek-v-tomashek-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack