Brown v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brown v. Brown

54 A.D.2d 553, 387 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13859

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

DecidedSeptember 20, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 553 (Brown v. Brown) 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

Brown v. Brown, 54 A.D.2d 553, 387 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13859 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for divorce, the plaintiff husband appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 1, 1976, as, on defendant’s cross motion, directed him to turn over a certain automobile to defendant, or to pay her an amount equal to the weekly rental of a similar automobile. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and cross motion denied. We construe defendant’s cross motion as seeking additional temporary alimony and, on the papers presented herein, it was an abuse of discretion to grant it. The most effective remedy for any seeming inequity in an award of temporary alimony is a speedy trial where the true facts as to finances and standards of living of the parties can be ascertained, and where the defendant’s right to alimony can be finally determined (see Tobias v Tobias, 36 AD2d 643). Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham, Cohalan and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for divorce, the plaintiff husband appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 1, 1976, as, on defendant’s cross motion, directed him to turn over a certain automobile to defendant, or to pay her an amount equal to the weekly rental of a similar automobile. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and cross motion denied. We construe defendant’s cross motion as seeking additional temporary alimony and, on the papers presented herein, it was an abuse of discretion to grant it. The most effective remedy for any seeming inequity in an award of temporary alimony is a speedy trial where the true facts as to finances and standards of living of the parties can be ascertained, and where the defendant’s right to alimony can be finally determined (see Tobias v Tobias, 36 AD2d 643). Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham, Cohalan and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 553, 387 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-brown-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack