Golub v. Golub

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Golub v. Golub

73 A.D.2d 591, 422 N.Y.S.2d 129, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14378

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

DecidedDecember 3, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 73 A.D.2d 591 (Golub v. Golub) 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

Golub v. Golub, 73 A.D.2d 591, 422 N.Y.S.2d 129, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14378 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action, defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 27, 1979, as appointed plaintiff receiver of certain of defendant’s property and made [592]*592related directives. Order modified by (1) adding to the first decretal paragraph thereof, immediately after the word "granted”, the following: "only insofar as it seeks a judgment for arrears”, and (2) deleting the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth decretal paragraphs thereof. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and action remitted to Special Term for a plenary hearing on the issue of defendant’s ownership of the subject property. A reasonable question has been raised as to defendant’s ownership interest in the property plaintiff would like to sequester. Accordingly, this issue must be determined after a plenary hearing and not on the basis of conflicting affidavits (see Rosenberg v Rosenberg, 259 NY 338). Mangano, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Gibbons, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action, defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 27, 1979, as appointed plaintiff receiver of certain of defendant’s property and made [592]*592related directives. Order modified by (1) adding to the first decretal paragraph thereof, immediately after the word "granted”, the following: "only insofar as it seeks a judgment for arrears”, and (2) deleting the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth decretal paragraphs thereof. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and action remitted to Special Term for a plenary hearing on the issue of defendant’s ownership of the subject property. A reasonable question has been raised as to defendant’s ownership interest in the property plaintiff would like to sequester. Accordingly, this issue must be determined after a plenary hearing and not on the basis of conflicting affidavits (see Rosenberg v Rosenberg, 259 NY 338). Mangano, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Gibbons, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.2d 591, 422 N.Y.S.2d 129, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/golub-v-golub-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack