Wachsman v. Wachsman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wachsman v. Wachsman

27 A.D.2d 953, 282 N.Y.S.2d 187, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4377

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

DecidedApril 24, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 953 (Wachsman v. Wachsman) 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

Wachsman v. Wachsman, 27 A.D.2d 953, 282 N.Y.S.2d 187, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4377 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated September 26, 1966, reversed, on the law and facts, without costs, and proceeding remitted to said court for a hearing and determination de novo in accordance with the memorandum herewith. The semi-monthly award in this case was made [954]*954after the trial court had refused to permit inquiry into petitioner’s (the wife’s) financial assets and without “ due regard to the circumstances of the respective parties” (Family Court Act, § 412 [emphasis added]). In any event, the award appears to he excessive in the present posture of the evidence and we prefer that the parties themselves have the opportunity of settling their difficulties or as an alternative that the Family Court hold a new hearing and make a new determination based on the evidence adduced thereat. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

Order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated September 26, 1966, reversed, on the law and facts, without costs, and proceeding remitted to said court for a hearing and determination de novo in accordance with the memorandum herewith. The semi-monthly award in this case was made [954]*954after the trial court had refused to permit inquiry into petitioner’s (the wife’s) financial assets and without “ due regard to the circumstances of the respective parties” (Family Court Act, § 412 [emphasis added]). In any event, the award appears to he excessive in the present posture of the evidence and we prefer that the parties themselves have the opportunity of settling their difficulties or as an alternative that the Family Court hold a new hearing and make a new determination based on the evidence adduced thereat. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 953, 282 N.Y.S.2d 187, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wachsman-v-wachsman-nyappdiv-1967.