TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Guterding v. Guterding

Arthur H. Guterding v. Helen Guterding

Guterding v. Guterding, 55 A.D.2d 614 (1976)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
December 13, 1976
Citations
55 A.D.2d 614389 N.Y.S.2d 4011976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15339

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

In an action in which the defendant wife was granted a judgment of divorce, she appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 9, 1975, which, after a hearing, denied her motion (a) to modify the judgment of divorce so as to include therein alimony provisions and (b) for counsel fees, and (2) as limited by her brief, from so much of a further order of the same court, dated December 4, 1975, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination. Appeal from the order dated October 9, 1975 dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements. That order was superseded by the order made upon reargument. Order dated December 4, 1975 reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and defendant’s motion to modify the judgment of divorce and for counsel fees is granted to the extent that a de novo hearing is directed on all of the issues. The issue of defendant’s support was not adjudicated at the time she was granted a divorce. Special Term, during the trial of the action for divorce, stated that "The judgment can show she is not asking for any support or any alimony at this time, but that is not to indicate the Court approves her waiving of support and she has the right to come back, should the need require it.” Accordingly, defendant has the right to apply for support at this time and to have a full hearing to determine the issues, albeit without the application of the "change of circumstances” principle which, under the facts of this case, was not pertinent and should not have been considered by Special Term. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello and Damiani, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1980: 21984: 12015: 119802026peak 1980 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Marriage of Mulroy v. Mulroy354 N.W.2d 66 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
  2. Hyman v. Hillelson79 A.D.2d 725 (1980)
  3. Wood v. Wood73 A.D.2d 963 (1980)
  4. Aziz v. City of New York130 A.D.3d 451 (2015)

Most recent

  1. Aziz v. City of New York130 A.D.3d 451 (2015)
  2. Marriage of Mulroy v. Mulroy354 N.W.2d 66 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
  3. Hyman v. Hillelson79 A.D.2d 725 (1980)
  4. Wood v. Wood73 A.D.2d 963 (1980)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list