From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nogid v. Nogid

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 22, 1976
54 A.D.2d 961 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Opinion

November 22, 1976


In a matrimonial action in which the plaintiff wife had been granted a judgment of divorce, defendant appeals from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 1, 1976, which resettled a prior order of the same court, dated March 9, 1976, and, inter alia, directed (1) the production of certain records and (2) a hearing on pending motions for upward and downward modification of the alimony and support provisions contained in the said judgment. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. Defendant has not clearly demonstrated that the issues of support and alimony can be resolved on motion papers (see Sarnicola v Sarnicola, 50 A.D.2d 842; Matter of Garritano v Garritano, 49 A.D.2d 906). In the absence of compelling proof, a hearing is necessary (cf. Casola v Casola, 235 N.Y.S.2d 495). Further, the direction for further disclosure was not improper (see Domestic Relations Law, § 250; CPLR 3101; Perse v Perse, 52 A.D.2d 60). Gulotta, P.J., Hopkins, Martuscello and Suozzi, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Nogid v. Nogid

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 22, 1976
54 A.D.2d 961 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)
Case details for

Nogid v. Nogid

Case Details

Full title:GLORIA NOGID, Respondent, v. HENRY NOGID, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 22, 1976

Citations

54 A.D.2d 961 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Citing Cases

Szabo v. Szabo

While the record is somewhat sketchy, we believe that there are facts alleged in the moving papers sufficient…

Hurd v. Hurd

Obviously, the court did not treat this as a default, but instead regarded plaintiff as having appeared and…