Goldberg v. Goldberg

We think that this order is practically a review of one Special Term by another, made within too short a period, when there is no radical change in the circumstances. It seems to us that the increase of the allowance for the child is unwarranted. The order is, therefore, reversed, and motion denied without prejudice to an application for an order requiring the father to pay the doctor’s bills. Jenks, P. J., Mills, Putnam, Blaekmar and Kelly, JJ., concur.