Whitener v. Whitener

37 A.D.2d 979, 327 N.Y.S.2d 415, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2969
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 22, 1971
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 37 A.D.2d 979 (Whitener v. Whitener) 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
Whitener v. Whitener, 37 A.D.2d 979, 327 N.Y.S.2d 415, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2969 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Opinion

In a proceeding for support pursuant to article 4 of the Family Court Act, respondent-husband appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, entered March 23, 1971, which denied his motion to vacate a prior support order dated July 11, 1969 or for alternative relief. Order reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs; and motion granted so "as to vacate the order of July 11, 1969 and grant a new trial. The questions of fact have not been considered. Appellant appeared pro se at the hearing culminating in the support order of July 11, 1969. After a rather perfunctory, but perhaps adequate, statement to appellant about his right to counsel (cf. Matter of Silvestris v. Silvestris, 24 A D 2d 247), and his acquiescence to an immediate hearing, the court below proceeded to question the parties. - In the course of the short hearing, with all of the questioning done by the court, it became apparent that there might be an issue as to whether [980]*980the wife had abandoned appellant many years earlier and whether she might thus have forfeited her right to support by him on a means basis (see Levy v. Levy, 22 A D 2d 794; Rosa v. Rosa, 275 App. Div. 1050). This issue was not explored in depth by the court; and appellant was at no time advised of his right to cross-examine his wife and produce witnesses to rebut her assertions. Under these circumstances, we believe appellant did not get an adequate hearing and “ was not accorded his statutory right, granted him by section 433, of an opportunity to be heard and to present witnesses ’ ” (Matter of Silvestris v. Silvestris, supra, p. 250). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Gulotta, Christ and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Mosso v. Mosso
6 A.D.3d 827 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Hough v. Hough
125 A.D.2d 791 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Nowacki v. Nowacki
90 A.D.2d 795 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Eagen v. Bolden
51 A.D.2d 1017 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 A.D.2d 979, 327 N.Y.S.2d 415, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2969, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitener-v-whitener-nyappdiv-1971.