Braiman v. Braiman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Braiman v. Braiman

46 A.D.2d 1011, 363 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3404

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 12, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 46 A.D.2d 1011 (Braiman v. Braiman) 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

Braiman v. Braiman, 46 A.D.2d 1011, 363 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3404 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion for a stay denied; and despite the pending appeal, the parties are directed to proceed in Supreme Court, Monroe County, which shall grant a preference and fix an early date for trial of the action. Memorandum: This divorce action should have been tried and a final decree entered therein months ago. As we have stated on many occasions, excessive litigation in preliminary skirmishes is wasteful of court time and unduly expensive to the parties. Temporary alimony proceedings should not be permitted to overshadow the basic action, and appeals from orders for temporary alimony are discouraged. The best remedy from such an order is an early trial of the action (Schoellkopf v. Schoellkopf, 41 A D 2d 599; De Gasper v. De Gasper, 31 A D 2d 886). The principle of law relied upon by defendant-appellant, that alimony may not be increased without a showing of changed circumstances, applies with respect to orders for permanent alimony. Traditionally, temporary alimony is fixed in the discretion of the court upon the moving papers, without testimony; and in .the absence of agreement the amount fixed should not be determinative of the amount of the permanent alimony ultimately fixed in the divorce decree {Be Gasper v. Be Gasper, supra-, Schine v. Schine, 28 A D 2d 976). Present — Marsh, P. J., Witmer, Cardamone, Simons and Goldman, JJ.

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

Motion for a stay denied; and despite the pending appeal, the parties are directed to proceed in Supreme Court, Monroe County, which shall grant a preference and fix an early date for trial of the action. Memorandum: This divorce action should have been tried and a final decree entered therein months ago. As we have stated on many occasions, excessive litigation in preliminary skirmishes is wasteful of court time and unduly expensive to the parties. Temporary alimony proceedings should not be permitted to overshadow the basic action, and appeals from orders for temporary alimony are discouraged. The best remedy from such an order is an early trial of the action (Schoellkopf v. Schoellkopf, 41 A D 2d 599; De Gasper v. De Gasper, 31 A D 2d 886). The principle of law relied upon by defendant-appellant, that alimony may not be increased without a showing of changed circumstances, applies with respect to orders for permanent alimony. Traditionally, temporary alimony is fixed in the discretion of the court upon the moving papers, without testimony; and in .the absence of agreement the amount fixed should not be determinative of the amount of the permanent alimony ultimately fixed in the divorce decree {Be Gasper v. Be Gasper, supra-, Schine v. Schine, 28 A D 2d 976). Present — Marsh, P. J., Witmer, Cardamone, Simons and Goldman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.2d 1011, 363 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/braiman-v-braiman-nyappdiv-1974.