Alpert v. Alpert
| Decision Date | 23 December 1963 |
| Citation | 20 A.D.2d 560,245 N.Y.S.2d 902 |
| Parties | Samuel Charles ALPERT, Appellant, v. Helen ALPERT, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Corner, Finn, Froeb & Charles, Brooklyn, for appellant. Mario Matthew Cuomo, Brooklyn, of counsel.
Sharf, Mackell & Hellenbrand, Kew Gardens, for respondent. Edward Sharf, Kew Gardens, of counsel.
Before BELDOCK, P. J., and UGHETTA, KLEINFELD, BRENNAN and HILL, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action by a husband for a judicial separation, in which the wife asserted a counterclaim for divorce, and in which judgment was entered on her counterclaim, granting her a divorce and awarding to her alimony of $30 per week, the husband appeals, as limited by his brief: from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 18, 1963, as granted the wife's motion by: (a) modifying said judgment so as to increase such alimony to $120 per week; (b) directing that such increase be paid as of May 27, 1963, the return date of the motion; and (c) awarding to her a counsel fee of $1,000 upon the motion.
The husband also brings up for review, pursuant to statute (CPLR, § 5517, subd. b), so much of an order of said court, made August 2, 1963 upon reargument, as adhered to the foregoing disposition.
Appeal from order of June 18, 1963 dismissed; that order was superseded by the order of August 2, 1963 made upon reargument.
Order of August 2, 1963, insofar as appealed from, reversed without costs; and the wife's motion, insofar as she seeks to modify the judgment by increasing the alimony and insofar as she seeks a counsel fee, is remitted to the Special Term: (1) for the purpose of holding a plenary hearing as to: (a) the income and assets of the respective parties, both current and as of the time of the trial; (b) their respective needs and standards of living, then and now; (c) the changes, if any, in their circumstances since the date of the trial; and (d) all other facts relevant to the issue whether any increase in the alimony is warranted, and if so, in what amount; and (2) for the purpose of making a determination de novo, on the basis of all the proof adduced, of the wife's motion insofar as she seeks an increase in the alimony and a counsel fee.
In our opinion, the conflicting affidavits submitted by the respective parties do not contain sufficient facts to support a proper determination on the merits of the wife's motion either with respect to an increase in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Broida v. Bancroft
...29, 1984 should be dismissed. That order was superseded by the order dated April 9, 1984, made upon reargument (Alpert v. Alpert, 20 A.D.2d 560, 245 N.Y.S.2d 902). The order dated April 9, 1984 should be reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, the de......
-
Weiss v. Nathan
...motion, dismissed the complaint, dismissed, without costs. The order was superseded by the later order on reargument (Alpert v. Alpert, 20 A.D.2d 560, 245 N.Y.S.2d 902). Order of the same court dated November 30, 1967, which, on reargument, adhered to the original decision, affirmed insofar......
-
Oreste v. Oreste
...are insufficient to support a proper determination and a hearing must be held to develop all the relevant facts (cf. Alpert v. Alpert, 20 A.D.2d 560, 245 N.Y.S.2d 902; Peters v. Peters, 14 A.D.2d 778, 219 N.Y.S.2d 906; Sloan v. Sloan, 286 App.Div. 1102, 145 N.Y.S.2d BELDOCK, P.J., and UGHET......
-
Howard v. Howard
...plaintiff's exclusive support and maintenance at $165 a week (cf. Bishop v. Bishop, 15 A.D.2d 494, 222 N.Y.S.2d 232; Alpert v. Alpert, 20 A.D.2d 560, 245 N.Y.S.2d 902; Addis v. Addis, Sup., 73 N.Y.S.2d 873); or (b) in fixing the plaintiff's counsel fee and disbursements at With respect to t......