Wollens v. Wollens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wollens v. Wollens

225 A.D. 764

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1928

StatusPublished

This text of 225 A.D. 764 (Wollens v. Wollens) 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

Wollens v. Wollens, 225 A.D. 764 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Order resettling order granting motion to punish for contempt affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. (1) When all the provisions of the judgment are read together they furnish a sufficient basis for the contempt order herein. (2) Appellant complied with the judgment for a time and did not appeal from it by way of eliminating the direction therein to pay for the support of the child, which provision he now fails to obey. No question of the invalidity of that direction was raised in the Special Term, or in this court in this proceeding, upon the ground, that the court had no authority to make such a direction. Justice does not require that this question be now considered, and it may not be considered now in this proceeding so long as the judgment containing that direction continues in full force and effect. Young, Hagarty, Seeger and Carswell, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., dissents, being of opinion that the court had no authority to make the judgment for a disobedience of which the contempt order was made. (Lesser v. Lesser, 114 Misc. 701, and cases there cited.)

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

Order resettling order granting motion to punish for contempt affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. (1) When all the provisions of the judgment are read together they furnish a sufficient basis for the contempt order herein. (2) Appellant complied with the judgment for a time and did not appeal from it by way of eliminating the direction therein to pay for the support of the child, which provision he now fails to obey. No question of the invalidity of that direction was raised in the Special Term, or in this court in this proceeding, upon the ground, that the court had no authority to make such a direction. Justice does not require that this question be now considered, and it may not be considered now in this proceeding so long as the judgment containing that direction continues in full force and effect. Young, Hagarty, Seeger and Carswell, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., dissents, being of opinion that the court had no authority to make the judgment for a disobedience of which the contempt order was made. (Lesser v. Lesser, 114 Misc. 701, and cases there cited.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D. 764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wollens-v-wollens-nyappdiv-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack