Goldman v. Goldman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldman v. Goldman

45 A.D.2d 719, 355 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4815

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

DecidedJune 4, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 45 A.D.2d 719 (Goldman v. Goldman) 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

Goldman v. Goldman, 45 A.D.2d 719, 355 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4815 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for separation, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered December 6, 1973, which granted plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, to punish defendant for contempt of court for failure to comply with an order of temporary alimony. Order modified by striking therefrom all of the decretal paragraphs, except the seventh, which awarded plaintiff a counsel fee, and by adding thereto a provision directing that an immediate trial of the issues in the case take place in June, 1974, at which trial plaintiff may renew her application to punish for contempt. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. A prompt trial is the means to resolve asserted inequities in an award of temporary alimony (Levene v. Levene, 41 A D 2d 530). At the trial the parties may adduce evidence of their respective financial circumstances and, on the basis of such evidence, the amount of permanent alimony, if any, can be determined. Hopkins, Acting P. J., MartusceHo, Gohalan, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for separation, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered December 6, 1973, which granted plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, to punish defendant for contempt of court for failure to comply with an order of temporary alimony. Order modified by striking therefrom all of the decretal paragraphs, except the seventh, which awarded plaintiff a counsel fee, and by adding thereto a provision directing that an immediate trial of the issues in the case take place in June, 1974, at which trial plaintiff may renew her application to punish for contempt. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. A prompt trial is the means to resolve asserted inequities in an award of temporary alimony (Levene v. Levene, 41 A D 2d 530). At the trial the parties may adduce evidence of their respective financial circumstances and, on the basis of such evidence, the amount of permanent alimony, if any, can be determined. Hopkins, Acting P. J., MartusceHo, Gohalan, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.2d 719, 355 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldman-v-goldman-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack