Frischman v. Frischman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Frischman v. Frischman

31 A.D.2d 938, 299 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4445

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

DecidedMarch 10, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 938 (Frischman v. Frischman) 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

Frischman v. Frischman, 31 A.D.2d 938, 299 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4445 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

—■ Order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 26, 1968, which denied defendant’s motion for a stay, affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, discretion was not abused by the denial of the motion. The obligations of plaintiff to defendant would be better resolved by Special Term at one time rather than in piecemeal fashion. As defendant has elected to reserve to her answer those issues involving plaintiff’s right to a divorce pursuant to subdivision (5) of section 170 of the Domestic Relations Law by virtue of the New Jersey judgment, we do not pass upon any of such issues. Brennan, Acting P. J,, Benjamin, Munder, Martuscello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

—■ Order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 26, 1968, which denied defendant’s motion for a stay, affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, discretion was not abused by the denial of the motion. The obligations of plaintiff to defendant would be better resolved by Special Term at one time rather than in piecemeal fashion. As defendant has elected to reserve to her answer those issues involving plaintiff’s right to a divorce pursuant to subdivision (5) of section 170 of the Domestic Relations Law by virtue of the New Jersey judgment, we do not pass upon any of such issues. Brennan, Acting P. J,, Benjamin, Munder, Martuscello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 938, 299 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frischman-v-frischman-nyappdiv-1969.