Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Windwer v. Windwer

Windwer v. Windwer

39 A.D.2d 927, 333 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4401
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 6, 1972
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 39 A.D.2d 927 (Windwer v. Windwer) 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
Windwer v. Windwer, 39 A.D.2d 927, 333 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4401 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to section 466 (subd. [c], par. [ii]) of the Family Court Act in which appellant sought modification of a decree of divorce rendered by a court, in Mexico, the appeal is from so much of an order of the Family Court, Nassau County, dated December 10, 1971 and [928]*928entered January 4, 1972, as denied the application and dismissed the petition after a nonjury trial. Order modified, on the law, by limiting the denial of the application and dismissal of the petition to the portion relating to the question of reduction of the amounts to be paid for support. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs, and proceeding remanded to the Family Court, Nassau County, for a hearing and a new determination on the question of whether there should be a modification as to visitation. A divorced husband’s remarriage and a child bom of his remarriage are not such circumstances as would warrant a reduction in support provisions, where the husband’s income remains unchanged. With respect to modification of visitation arrangements, not considered by the court below, the proceeding should be remanded for a hearing at which the pertinent circumstances may be adduced and a new determination made. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder, Martuscello, Gulotta and Christ, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Tawil v. Tawil
34 Misc. 3d 812 (New York Supreme Court, 2011)
Evangeline M. v. Ebenezer E.
176 Misc. 2d 441 (NYC Family Court, 1998)
Michael M. v. Judith M.
148 Misc. 2d 712 (NYC Family Court, 1990)
Cream v. Brace
124 Misc. 2d 647 (New York Family Court, 1984)
Irene Q. v. John H.
122 Misc. 2d 13 (New York Family Court, 1983)
Patell v. Patell
91 A.D.2d 682 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Zaleski v. Combes
85 A.D.2d 634 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Felisa L. D. v. Allen M.
107 Misc. 2d 217 (NYC Family Court, 1980)
Wiesenfeld v. State of NY
474 F. Supp. 1141 (S.D. New York, 1979)
Wiesenfeld v. New York
474 F. Supp. 1141 (S.D. New York, 1979)
Villano v. Villano
98 Misc. 2d 774 (New York Supreme Court, 1979)
Adrien v. Adrien
65 A.D.2d 931 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
Hickland v. Hickland
56 A.D.2d 978 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
Lawrence R. v. Muriel R.
89 Misc. 2d 666 (NYC Family Court, 1976)
Lenore Z. K. v. Albert K.
83 Misc. 2d 911 (New York Family Court, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
39 A.D.2d 927, 333 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/windwer-v-windwer-nyappdiv-1972.