Fredenburgh v. Fredenburgh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fredenburgh v. Fredenburgh

187 A.D.2d 482, 590 N.Y.S.2d 741, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12762

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 9, 1992·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary [483]*483relief, the plaintiff wife appeals, as limited by her notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Walsh, J.), entered September 25, 1990, as denied her application for temporary maintenance.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Generally, the remedy for any seeming inequity in the award or denial of temporary maintenance is a speedy trial at which the rights of the parties may be fully determined (see, Weissglass v Weissglass, 52 AD2d 923; Thomases v Thomases, 51 AD2d 753). Accordingly, the parties should proceed to trial to resolve all issues. In any event, the Supreme Court made a reasonable accommodation between the needs of the plaintiff wife and the defendant husband’s financial ability to pay for those needs (see, Crowley v Crowley, 120 AD2d 559; Stern v Stern, 106 AD2d 631). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Miller, Copertino and Santucci, 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 [483]*483relief, the plaintiff wife appeals, as limited by her notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Walsh, J.), entered September 25, 1990, as denied her application for temporary maintenance.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Generally, the remedy for any seeming inequity in the award or denial of temporary maintenance is a speedy trial at which the rights of the parties may be fully determined (see, Weissglass v Weissglass, 52 AD2d 923; Thomases v Thomases, 51 AD2d 753). Accordingly, the parties should proceed to trial to resolve all issues. In any event, the Supreme Court made a reasonable accommodation between the needs of the plaintiff wife and the defendant husband’s financial ability to pay for those needs (see, Crowley v Crowley, 120 AD2d 559; Stern v Stern, 106 AD2d 631). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Miller, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Fredenburgh v. Fredenburgh, 187 A.D.2d 482, 590 N.Y.S.2d 741, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12762 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

187 A.D.2d 482 (Fredenburgh v. Fredenburgh) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related