Witkowski v. Witkowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Witkowski v. Witkowski

271 A.D.2d 901

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1946

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 901 (Witkowski v. Witkowski) 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

Witkowski v. Witkowski, 271 A.D.2d 901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order modifying a final decree of divorce by granting defendant’s application made pursuant to sections 1172-a and 1172-c of the Civil Practice Act, and reducing the amount of alimony payable, and conditionally denying appellant’s motion to punish the defendant for contempt for failure to pay alimony, modified on the law and the facts by striking therefrom the provision reducing the alimony payments to be made by defendant. As thus modified, the order is affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, payable to appellant. There is no showing of changed circumstances in the financial condition of the parties since the entry of the decree, and reduction of the amount of alimony is, therefore, not justified. Lewis, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur.

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

— Order modifying a final decree of divorce by granting defendant’s application made pursuant to sections 1172-a and 1172-c of the Civil Practice Act, and reducing the amount of alimony payable, and conditionally denying appellant’s motion to punish the defendant for contempt for failure to pay alimony, modified on the law and the facts by striking therefrom the provision reducing the alimony payments to be made by defendant. As thus modified, the order is affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, payable to appellant. There is no showing of changed circumstances in the financial condition of the parties since the entry of the decree, and reduction of the amount of alimony is, therefore, not justified. Lewis, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/witkowski-v-witkowski-nyappdiv-1946.