Gellman v. Gellman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gellman v. Gellman

182 A.D.2d 542

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

DecidedApril 21, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 182 A.D.2d 542 (Gellman v. Gellman) 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

Gellman v. Gellman, 182 A.D.2d 542 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered June 20, 1991, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff’s motion for downward modification of interim support, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As held by the IAS court, plaintiff’s remedy for possible inequity in the interim support order is a speedy trial (Getson v Getson, 91 AD2d 540). In this regard, a discovery dispute which led to protracted delay, having now been resolved, it appears that the action will proceed to trial in due course.

We have considered the remaining arguments, including those raised by the defendant in her cross-appeal, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered June 20, 1991, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff’s motion for downward modification of interim support, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As held by the IAS court, plaintiff’s remedy for possible inequity in the interim support order is a speedy trial (Getson v Getson, 91 AD2d 540). In this regard, a discovery dispute which led to protracted delay, having now been resolved, it appears that the action will proceed to trial in due course.

We have considered the remaining arguments, including those raised by the defendant in her cross-appeal, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 A.D.2d 542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gellman-v-gellman-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack