Vogel v. Vogel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vogel v. Vogel

41 A.D.2d 647, 340 N.Y.S.2d 616, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5197

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.2d 647 (Vogel v. Vogel) 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

Vogel v. Vogel, 41 A.D.2d 647, 340 N.Y.S.2d 616, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5197 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

In a support proceeding' pursuant tq article 4 .of the Family Court Act, the appeal is from.an order of. the Family Court, Rockland County,. dated June 23,. 1972, which directed appellant, to pay (1) $250 a week, $125 thereof for support. of his wife (petitioner) '.and $125 for support of his son, (2) premiums for health and accident insurance and for life insurance and (3) debts of $1,334.19.;. Order modified, on the facts and in the interests of justice, by (1) reducing the award of support to $180 a week, $90 for petitioner and $90 for, the child, and (2) striking from the provision directing payment .ofirisurance the words “• and the life insurance policies ”. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. We áre of the view that the support order was excessive to the extent indicated herein. There is no legal basis for the direction to maintain the life insurance policies (Enos v. Enos, 41 A D 2d 642). Munder, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin-, JJ.,. concur; Hopkins, Acting P. J., concurs, as to striking the provision'regarding maintenance • of the life insurance policies under constraint of Enos v. Enos (41 A D 2d 642).

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

In a support proceeding' pursuant tq article 4 .of the Family Court Act, the appeal is from.an order of. the Family Court, Rockland County,. dated June 23,. 1972, which directed appellant, to pay (1) $250 a week, $125 thereof for support. of his wife (petitioner) '.and $125 for support of his son, (2) premiums for health and accident insurance and for life insurance and (3) debts of $1,334.19.;. Order modified, on the facts and in the interests of justice, by (1) reducing the award of support to $180 a week, $90 for petitioner and $90 for, the child, and (2) striking from the provision directing payment .ofirisurance the words “• and the life insurance policies ”. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. We áre of the view that the support order was excessive to the extent indicated herein. There is no legal basis for the direction to maintain the life insurance policies (Enos v. Enos, 41 A D 2d 642). Munder, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin-, JJ.,. concur; Hopkins, Acting P. J., concurs, as to striking the provision'regarding maintenance • of the life insurance policies under constraint of Enos v. Enos (41 A D 2d 642).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 647, 340 N.Y.S.2d 616, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vogel-v-vogel-nyappdiv-1973.