De Gasper v. De Gasper

31 A.D.2d 886, 298 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4575
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 20, 1969
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 31 A.D.2d 886 (De Gasper v. De Gasper) 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
De Gasper v. De Gasper, 31 A.D.2d 886, 298 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4575 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Opinion

—■ Order unanimously .affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Appeals from orders granting temporary alimony are not favored, and it is suggested that generally in lieu thereof counsel should promptly proceed to trial (see Domestic Relations Law, § 249), We recognize that in the court’s discretion temporary alimony and support may be denied where the husband is adequately caring for the needs of his wife and children (see Scheideler v. Scheideler, 10 A D 2d 991; Baker v. Baker, 16 A D 2d 409; Domestic Relations Law, § 236). It should be noted that the amount of permanent alimony and support to be awarded, if any, is to be based upon the evidence and not upon the amount awarded as temporary alimony, which is determined upon the moving .papers (Schine v. Schine, 28 A D 2d 976; Sklan v. Sklan, 29 A D 2d 526; Brown v. Brown, 31 A D 2d 516). With respect to alimony, we think it generally inadvisable to direct payments óf the wife’s expenses of a designated character, which may permit her to increase the award by incurring larger expenses of that character, and we deem it preferable that periodic payments of a specified amount be fixed (Schine v. Schine, supra; Macris v. Macris, 29 A D 2d 528; and see Braun v. Braun, 29 A D 2d 929; Domestic Relations Law, § 236). In this case, where the husband is suing for divorce, we find no impropriety in the allowance of counsel fees to defendant (see Walsh v. Walsh, 22 A D 2d 937; Sierson v. Sierson, 269 App. Div. 899). (Appeal from order of Erie 'Special Term, awarding temporary .alimony and counsel fees.) Present-—-Del Vecchio, J. P., Marsh, Witmer, Gabrielli and Moule, JJ.

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

Related

Harkavy v. Harkavy
93 A.D.2d 879 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Hite v. Hite
89 A.D.2d 577 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Weaver v. Weaver
78 A.D.2d 771 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Smith v. Smith
61 A.D.2d 1133 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
Kunerth v. Kunerth
58 A.D.2d 1010 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
Fomenko v. Fomenko
50 A.D.2d 712 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)
Fleming v. Fleming
47 A.D.2d 989 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 A.D.2d 886, 298 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-gasper-v-de-gasper-nyappdiv-1969.