Zarch v. Zarch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zarch v. Zarch

21 A.D.2d 732, 251 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3675

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

DecidedMay 27, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 21 A.D.2d 732 (Zarch v. Zarch) 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

Zarch v. Zarch, 21 A.D.2d 732, 251 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3675 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

We find no reason to disturb the exercise of Special Term’s discretion in reducing by no more than $10 per week the payments for the wife’s support directed by the judgment. We find inadequate, however, the proof offered to contradict the evidence that the daughter is self-supporting or substantially so. In any event, and in view of her age and education, her employment status may have become stabilized during the intervening eight months. Order modified so as to delete the first decretal paragraph thereof and matter remitted to Special Term for [733]*733additional proof with respect to the subject thereof, and, as so modified, affirmed, with $10 costs to respondent. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

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

We find no reason to disturb the exercise of Special Term’s discretion in reducing by no more than $10 per week the payments for the wife’s support directed by the judgment. We find inadequate, however, the proof offered to contradict the evidence that the daughter is self-supporting or substantially so. In any event, and in view of her age and education, her employment status may have become stabilized during the intervening eight months. Order modified so as to delete the first decretal paragraph thereof and matter remitted to Special Term for [733]*733additional proof with respect to the subject thereof, and, as so modified, affirmed, with $10 costs to respondent. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.2d 732, 251 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zarch-v-zarch-nyappdiv-1964.