Casalino v. Casalino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Casalino v. Casalino

19 A.D.2d 835, 245 N.Y.S.2d 40

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

DecidedOctober 21, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 835 (Casalino v. Casalino) 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

Casalino v. Casalino, 19 A.D.2d 835, 245 N.Y.S.2d 40 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by plaintiff wife for a judicial separation, she appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 8, 1963, which denied her motion for alimony, pendente lite, and counsel fees, “without prejudice to a renewal thereof upon proper papers.” Order reversed, without costs, and plaintiff’s motion granted to the extent of (a) directing the defendant husband to pay plaintiff for her temporary support the sum of $30 a week, commencing as of December 28, 1962 (the date when her motion was made returnable) ; and (b) referring the question of counsel fees to the Justice presiding upon the trial of the action. In our opinion, it was improper to deny plaintiff’s motion and, under all the circumstances, plaintiff was entitled to an award as indicated. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by plaintiff wife for a judicial separation, she appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 8, 1963, which denied her motion for alimony, pendente lite, and counsel fees, “without prejudice to a renewal thereof upon proper papers.” Order reversed, without costs, and plaintiff’s motion granted to the extent of (a) directing the defendant husband to pay plaintiff for her temporary support the sum of $30 a week, commencing as of December 28, 1962 (the date when her motion was made returnable) ; and (b) referring the question of counsel fees to the Justice presiding upon the trial of the action. In our opinion, it was improper to deny plaintiff’s motion and, under all the circumstances, plaintiff was entitled to an award as indicated. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 835, 245 N.Y.S.2d 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casalino-v-casalino-nyappdiv-1963.