Baratta v. Baratta
| Decision Date | 11 June 1984 |
| Citation | 102 A.D.2d 838,476 N.Y.S.2d 637 |
| Parties | Caroline BARATTA, Respondent, v. Ronald R. BARATTA, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Goldstein & Rubinton, P.C., Huntington (Peter D. Rubinton, Huntington, of counsel), for appellant.
Jerry I. Lefkowitz, Forest Hills, for respondent.
Before LAZER, J.P., and GIBBONS, BRACKEN and LAWRENCE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action in which the plaintiff wife was granted a divorce, defendant husband appeals from an amended order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered April 12, 1983, which, after a hearing, inter alia, granted leave to the plaintiff to enter two judgments against the defendant for amounts representing arrears in payments due under a separation agreement incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce.
Matter remitted to Special Term for further proceedings consistent herewith; appeal held in abeyance in the interim.
The plaintiff wife has brought two applications to enforce obligations of the defendant husband arising out of their separation agreement. The first application culminated in an order directing defendant to pay $16,095.26 to the plaintiff subject to verification of the expenses claimed by the plaintiff. In the second application, plaintiff sought leave to enter a judgment in the amount set by the prior order, as well as an additional $27,753.32, for further expenses. Special Term granted plaintiff leave to enter judgments in the principal sums of $16,095.26 and $19,656.61. With respect to the second amount, while the court made findings as to certain of the expenses such as clothing expenditures, camp fees and a birthday party for one of the children, it failed to specifically determine which of the other claimed expenses fell within the defendant's obligations and which were adequately verified by the plaintiff. The court's failure to comply with its duty to "state the facts it deems essential" to its decision (see CPLR 4213, subd. ), has made intelligent judicial review of its decision impossible (see Berlin v. Berlin, 60 A.D.2d 861, 401 N.Y.S.2d 251; Alleyne v. Alleyne, 46 A.D.2d 785, 360 N.Y.S.2d 706).
Accordingly, the appeal is held in abeyance and the matter is remitted to Special Term for formulation of findings of fact essential to its decision.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zisman, Matter of
...The Surrogate failed to set forth essential findings of fact as required by CPLR 4213(b) and SCPA 102 (see, Baratta v. Baratta, 102 A.D.2d 838, 476 N.Y.S.2d 637). However, the record is sufficiently complete to permit intelligent appellate review, and thus, this court will make the requisit......
-
Westchester County Dept. of Social Services v. Cruz
...N.E.2d 1059; McDermott v. McDermott, 124 A.D.2d 715, 508 N.Y.S.2d 467; Raff v. Raff, 120 A.D.2d 507, 501 N.Y.S.2d 707; Baratta v. Baratta, 102 A.D.2d 838, 476 N.Y.S.2d 637; Matter of Priester v. Harp, 99 A.D.2d 900, 472 N.Y.S.2d 498; Matter of Van Dyck v. Van Dyck, 96 A.D.2d 629, 464 N.Y.S.......
- National Institute of Standards and Technology
-
Baratta v. Baratta
...the plaintiff wife in the amounts of (1) $16,095.26, and (2) $19,656.61, respectively. By order dated June 11, 1984 (Baratta v. Baratta, 102 A.D.2d 838, 476 N.Y.S.2d 637) this court remitted the matter to Special Term in order that it might state the facts it deemed essential to its decisio......