Wise v. Wise

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wise v. Wise

32 A.D.2d 552, 300 N.Y.S.2d 531, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4170

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

DecidedApril 21, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 32 A.D.2d 552 (Wise v. Wise) 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

Wise v. Wise, 32 A.D.2d 552, 300 N.Y.S.2d 531, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4170 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by petitioner from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County, dated January 9, 1969, which denied her motion for leave to appeal to this court as a poor person from a previous order of the same court denying her motion to increase the amount of support for two infant children of the parties. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and motion for leave to appeal as a poor person granted. Both sides have briefed the appeal on the assumption that the order of January 9, 1969 is appealable; and the question of appealability has not been litigated. We consequently do not reach or determine the issue of appealability. In our opinion it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny petitioner’s motion for leave to appeal as a poor person (Jenks v. Murphy, 21 A D 2d 346). Brennan, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by petitioner from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County, dated January 9, 1969, which denied her motion for leave to appeal to this court as a poor person from a previous order of the same court denying her motion to increase the amount of support for two infant children of the parties. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and motion for leave to appeal as a poor person granted. Both sides have briefed the appeal on the assumption that the order of January 9, 1969 is appealable; and the question of appealability has not been litigated. We consequently do not reach or determine the issue of appealability. In our opinion it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny petitioner’s motion for leave to appeal as a poor person (Jenks v. Murphy, 21 A D 2d 346). Brennan, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 552, 300 N.Y.S.2d 531, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wise-v-wise-nyappdiv-1969.