Cicio v. Cicio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cicio v. Cicio

109 A.D.2d 813, 486 N.Y.S.2d 330, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47321

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

DecidedMarch 18, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 109 A.D.2d 813 (Cicio v. Cicio) 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

Cicio v. Cicio, 109 A.D.2d 813, 486 N.Y.S.2d 330, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47321 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Stolarik, J.), dated June 29,1984, as awarded her only $40 per week for temporary maintenance and $50 per week for child support.

Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

In light of the parties’ respective financial conditions and the immediate financial needs of plaintiff, the award was adequate (Rossman v Rossman, 91 AD2d 1036). Moreover, the proper remedy for inequities in an order of support pendente lite is a speedy trial (see, Chachkes v Chachkes, 107 AD2d 786; Rossman v Rossman, supra). Gibbons, J. P., Bracken, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Stolarik, J.), dated June 29,1984, as awarded her only $40 per week for temporary maintenance and $50 per week for child support.

Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

In light of the parties’ respective financial conditions and the immediate financial needs of plaintiff, the award was adequate (Rossman v Rossman, 91 AD2d 1036). Moreover, the proper remedy for inequities in an order of support pendente lite is a speedy trial (see, Chachkes v Chachkes, 107 AD2d 786; Rossman v Rossman, supra). Gibbons, J. P., Bracken, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 A.D.2d 813, 486 N.Y.S.2d 330, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cicio-v-cicio-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack