Erdheim v. Erdheim

101 A.D.2d 803, 475 N.Y.S.2d 468, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18458
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 7, 1984
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 101 A.D.2d 803 (Erdheim v. Erdheim) 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
Erdheim v. Erdheim, 101 A.D.2d 803, 475 N.Y.S.2d 468, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18458 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

In a matrimonial action, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated March 14, 1983, as, upon the plaintiff wife’s motion, (1) awarded plaintiff temporary alimony and child support in the amount of $600 per week, (2) directed defendant to pay all carrying charges on the marital residence (except telephone, cable TV and law services), (3) directed defendant to continue in effect all insurance policies and pay all necessary medical, dental and drug expenses, and (4) directed defendant to furnish plaintiff with the use of a certain 1980 Cadillac. 11 Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. H A review of the supporting and opposing papers submitted to Special Term, as well as the appropriate statutory guidelines, indicates that the pendente lite awards to plaintiff did not constitute an abuse of discretion (Domestic Relations Law, § 236, part B, subd 6; Rossman v Rossman, 91 AD2d 1036). Moreover, the remedy for pendente lite awards claimed to be unsatisfactory is a trial at which a more detailed examination of the situation of the parties may be made (Marcus v Marcus, 91 AD2d 991). Mangano, J. P., Thompson, O’Connor and Boyers, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Gralnick v. Gralnick
248 A.D.2d 669 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Pascals v. Pascals
226 A.D.2d 439 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Entin v. Entin
204 A.D.2d 385 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Filosa v. Raven-Filosa
185 A.D.2d 225 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Frederick R. C. v. Helene C.
153 Misc. 2d 660 (New York Supreme Court, 1992)
Mulcahy v. Mulcahy
170 A.D.2d 587 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Ross v. Ross
137 A.D.2d 800 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Lopez v. Lopez
121 A.D.2d 515 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Erdheim v. Erdheim
119 A.D.2d 623 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Hildenbiddle v. Hildenbiddle
110 A.D.2d 819 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
101 A.D.2d 803, 475 N.Y.S.2d 468, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erdheim-v-erdheim-nyappdiv-1984.