Glazer v. Glazer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Glazer v. Glazer

12 A.D.2d 936, 211 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12860

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.2d 936 (Glazer v. Glazer) 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

Glazer v. Glazer, 12 A.D.2d 936, 211 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12860 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a separation on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment, abandonment and nonsupport, defendant husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated September 28, 1960, awarding plaintiff wife $100 a week alimony, pendente lite, for the support of herself and two infant children of the marriage residing with her, awarding her $1,250 counsel fees, and directing the husband to pay the first semester’s tuition at college for their son. Order modified by reducing the alimony award to $50 and limiting it to the support of the two infant children who reside with the wife; and by striking out in toto the award of counsel fee. As so modified the order is affirmed, without costs. The facts disclosed by the record: that shortly before the commencement of this action the wife appropriated $37,000 in cash and bonds valued in excess of $4,600, and that the husband turned over to her about $12,000 in bank deposits, all negative any need for the award of alimony, pendente lite, for herself and for counsel fees to enable her to prosecute the action (Lake v. Lake, 194 N. Y. 179; Hirschberg v. Hirschberg, 7 A D 2d 869; Rowley v. Rowley, 6 A D 2d 1049; Rubino v. Rubino, 9 A D 2d 959). This [937]*937disposition is without prejudice, however, to the right of the trial court, on the basis of the facts adduced upon the trial, to make any appropriate award of counsel fee to the wife, or to make any appropriate award of permanent alimony for her and the children, or to make retroactive to the return date of this motion such portion of the, permanent alimony (if any be awarded) as is intended for her personally (Hirschberg v. Hirschberg, supra; Rowley v. Rowley, supra). The issues in this action should be resolved by a prompt trial. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a separation on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment, abandonment and nonsupport, defendant husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated September 28, 1960, awarding plaintiff wife $100 a week alimony, pendente lite, for the support of herself and two infant children of the marriage residing with her, awarding her $1,250 counsel fees, and directing the husband to pay the first semester’s tuition at college for their son. Order modified by reducing the alimony award to $50 and limiting it to the support of the two infant children who reside with the wife; and by striking out in toto the award of counsel fee. As so modified the order is affirmed, without costs. The facts disclosed by the record: that shortly before the commencement of this action the wife appropriated $37,000 in cash and bonds valued in excess of $4,600, and that the husband turned over to her about $12,000 in bank deposits, all negative any need for the award of alimony, pendente lite, for herself and for counsel fees to enable her to prosecute the action (Lake v. Lake, 194 N. Y. 179; Hirschberg v. Hirschberg, 7 A D 2d 869; Rowley v. Rowley, 6 A D 2d 1049; Rubino v. Rubino, 9 A D 2d 959). This [937]*937disposition is without prejudice, however, to the right of the trial court, on the basis of the facts adduced upon the trial, to make any appropriate award of counsel fee to the wife, or to make any appropriate award of permanent alimony for her and the children, or to make retroactive to the return date of this motion such portion of the, permanent alimony (if any be awarded) as is intended for her personally (Hirschberg v. Hirschberg, supra; Rowley v. Rowley, supra). The issues in this action should be resolved by a prompt trial. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.2d 936, 211 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glazer-v-glazer-nyappdiv-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack