Block v. Block

245 A.D.2d 153, 665 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13045
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 16, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 245 A.D.2d 153 (Block v. Block) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Block v. Block, 245 A.D.2d 153, 665 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13045 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered June 4, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant husband’s motion for pendente lite access to the marital residence, denied plaintiff wife’s cross motion for pendente lite exclusive occupancy of the iharital residence, and granted the wife’s cross motion for various other pendente lite relief to the extent of awarding her $1,000 per month in tax-free maintenance, $1,600 per month in child support, and $5,000 in interim counsel fees without prejudice to future applications, unanimously modified, on the law, and the facts, to deny the husband’s motion for access to the marital residence and to grant the wife’s cross motion for exclusive occupancy of the marital residence, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

In light of the husband’s admission that due to marital strife, he voluntarily vacated the marital residence shortly after signing a one-year sublease for an apartment, and the unrebutted expert evidence concerning the impact of the domestic strife on the wife prior to the husband’s departure and the potential harm to the wife and children if the husband returned, the motion court erred in not granting the wife’s cross motion for exclusive occupancy of the marital residence and in granting

[154]*154the husband’s motion for complete access thereto (see, Annexstein v Annexstein, 202 AD2d 1062; Lawson v Lawson, 194 AD2d 389; Kristiansen v Kristiansen, 144 AD2d 441). The awards of temporary maintenance, temporary child support and interim counsel fees constitute a reasonable balancing of the parties’ financial needs and wherewithal and of the other factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6). Concur—Wallach, J. P., Rubin, Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Penavic v. Penavic
60 A.D.3d 1026 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Kenner v. Kenner
13 A.D.3d 52 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Block v. Block
296 A.D.2d 343 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
245 A.D.2d 153, 665 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13045, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/block-v-block-nyappdiv-1997.