Entin v. Entin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Entin v. Entin

204 A.D.2d 385, 614 N.Y.S.2d 171, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4794

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

DecidedMay 9, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 204 A.D.2d 385 (Entin v. Entin) 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

Entin v. Entin, 204 A.D.2d 385, 614 N.Y.S.2d 171, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4794 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), dated September 16, 1992, as directed him to pay from marital funds and assets the reasonable collegiate expenses of the parties’ two sons.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant has failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate that the pendente lite award constituted an improper exercise of discretion (see, Filosa v Raven-Filosa, 185 AD2d 225; Guiry v Guiry, 159 AD2d 556). Moreover, the remedy for a pendente lite award claimed to be unsatisfactory is a speedy trial, at which a more detailed examination of the situation of the parties may be made (see, Filosa v Raven-Filosa, supra; Erdheim v Erdheim, 101 AD2d 803). Lawrence, J. P., Copertino, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), dated September 16, 1992, as directed him to pay from marital funds and assets the reasonable collegiate expenses of the parties’ two sons.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant has failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate that the pendente lite award constituted an improper exercise of discretion (see, Filosa v Raven-Filosa, 185 AD2d 225; Guiry v Guiry, 159 AD2d 556). Moreover, the remedy for a pendente lite award claimed to be unsatisfactory is a speedy trial, at which a more detailed examination of the situation of the parties may be made (see, Filosa v Raven-Filosa, supra; Erdheim v Erdheim, 101 AD2d 803). Lawrence, J. P., Copertino, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 385, 614 N.Y.S.2d 171, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/entin-v-entin-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack