Trazzi v. Trazzi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Trazzi v. Trazzi

49 A.D.2d 954, 374 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11247

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

DecidedOctober 28, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 49 A.D.2d 954 (Trazzi v. Trazzi) 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

Trazzi v. Trazzi, 49 A.D.2d 954, 374 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11247 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In a support proceeding against a former spouse pursuant to article 4 of the Family Court Act, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County, dated May 28, 1974, in favor of respondent, upon the trial court’s dismissal of the petition at the close of petitioner’s case at a nonjury trial. Order affirmed, without costs. After her divorce, petitioner had no right to seek support from her former husband in a Family Court support proceeding as she was no longer a spouse within the meaning of section 412 of the Family Court Act (see Matter of Carter v Carter, 19 AD2d 513; Matter of "MM” v "MM”, 39 AD2d 995). Further, the Family Court properly ruled that it had no power to interfere with the fully executed lump-sum property settlement which was incorporated into the valid Mexican decree of divorce (see Family Ct Act, §466, subd [c]; Matter of Silver v Silver, 36 NY2d 324; Matter of Warden v Warden, 68 Misc 2d 1080). Gulotta, P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Latham and Margett, JJ., concur.

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

In a support proceeding against a former spouse pursuant to article 4 of the Family Court Act, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County, dated May 28, 1974, in favor of respondent, upon the trial court’s dismissal of the petition at the close of petitioner’s case at a nonjury trial. Order affirmed, without costs. After her divorce, petitioner had no right to seek support from her former husband in a Family Court support proceeding as she was no longer a spouse within the meaning of section 412 of the Family Court Act (see Matter of Carter v Carter, 19 AD2d 513; Matter of "MM” v "MM”, 39 AD2d 995). Further, the Family Court properly ruled that it had no power to interfere with the fully executed lump-sum property settlement which was incorporated into the valid Mexican decree of divorce (see Family Ct Act, §466, subd [c]; Matter of Silver v Silver, 36 NY2d 324; Matter of Warden v Warden, 68 Misc 2d 1080). Gulotta, P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Latham and Margett, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 954, 374 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trazzi-v-trazzi-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack