Fleisig v. Fleisig

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fleisig v. Fleisig

40 A.D.2d 609, 335 N.Y.S.2d 867, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3881

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

DecidedSeptember 25, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.2d 609 (Fleisig v. Fleisig) 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

Fleisig v. Fleisig, 40 A.D.2d 609, 335 N.Y.S.2d 867, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3881 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for divorce, the defendant husband appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered April 6, 1972, as, on plaintiff’s motion, awarded her alimony and child support and further directed defendant to pay the carrying charges, fuel and utility bills, exclusive of telephone service, on the parties’ marital residence, pendente lite. Order modified by reducing the award for respondent’s support from $225 to $100 per week (Domestic Relations Law, §§ 236, 240). As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. In our opinion, the award was excessive to the extent [610]*610indicated herein. Any seeming inequity in a temporary order for alimony and child support is to be remedied by a speedy trial where the rights of the parties can be finally determined (Bogut v. Bogut, 38 A D 2d 829; Tobias v. Tobias, 36 A D 2d 643; Lebovics v. Lebovics, 34 A D 2d 783). Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Latham and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for divorce, the defendant husband appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered April 6, 1972, as, on plaintiff’s motion, awarded her alimony and child support and further directed defendant to pay the carrying charges, fuel and utility bills, exclusive of telephone service, on the parties’ marital residence, pendente lite. Order modified by reducing the award for respondent’s support from $225 to $100 per week (Domestic Relations Law, §§ 236, 240). As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. In our opinion, the award was excessive to the extent [610]*610indicated herein. Any seeming inequity in a temporary order for alimony and child support is to be remedied by a speedy trial where the rights of the parties can be finally determined (Bogut v. Bogut, 38 A D 2d 829; Tobias v. Tobias, 36 A D 2d 643; Lebovics v. Lebovics, 34 A D 2d 783). Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Latham and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 609, 335 N.Y.S.2d 867, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fleisig-v-fleisig-nyappdiv-1972.