Strahl v. Strahl
Martin Strahl v. Leila Strahl
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with *1038 costs, for the reasons stated in the opinion by Mr. Justice Vito J. Titone at the Appellate Division. We note, however, that our holding in this case should not be construed to represent tacit approval of that aspect of the Appellate Division’s decision which suggested that an individual’s obligation to support his or her children pursuant to a divorce decree may be modified by conditioning it upon the custodial parent’s compliance with a court order or agreement regulating visitation privileges (cf. Borax v Borax, 4 NY2d 113 ). Although we find no ground for reversal in this case, we prefer to leave open the question whether such a modification, under different circumstances, might constitute an abuse of discretion.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 57 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.