Candiano v. Candiano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Candiano v. Candiano

70 A.D.2d 583, 415 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11987

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

DecidedMay 7, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 70 A.D.2d 583 (Candiano v. Candiano) 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

Candiano v. Candiano, 70 A.D.2d 583, 415 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11987 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a divorce action, plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered Janaury 18, 1977, as, after a nonjury trial, (1) awarded her alimony and child support in the total sum of $75 per week, (2) denied her exclusive possession of the marital home and (3) denied her counsel fees. Judgment modified, on the facts and as a matter of discretion, by deleting from the fifth decretal paragraph thereof the word "denied” and substituting therefor the word "granted”. As so modified, judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff Under the facts of this case and in the interest of justice, we believe that exclusive possession of the marital residence should be awarded to the plaintiff wife. Hopkins, J. P., Titone, Margett and Managano, JJ., concur.

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

—In a divorce action, plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered Janaury 18, 1977, as, after a nonjury trial, (1) awarded her alimony and child support in the total sum of $75 per week, (2) denied her exclusive possession of the marital home and (3) denied her counsel fees. Judgment modified, on the facts and as a matter of discretion, by deleting from the fifth decretal paragraph thereof the word "denied” and substituting therefor the word "granted”. As so modified, judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff Under the facts of this case and in the interest of justice, we believe that exclusive possession of the marital residence should be awarded to the plaintiff wife. Hopkins, J. P., Titone, Margett and Managano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.D.2d 583, 415 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11987, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/candiano-v-candiano-nyappdiv-1979.