Greenhut v. Greenhut

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Greenhut v. Greenhut

282 A.D. 681, 122 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4684

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

DecidedJune 23, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D. 681 (Greenhut v. Greenhut) 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

Greenhut v. Greenhut, 282 A.D. 681, 122 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4684 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders unanimously modified (1) by providing that the obligation of the husband to pay $150 for the support of the children be suspended during that part of the summer in which he pays all the expenses at camps for the maintenance of the children, and be suspended thereafter to the extent of $75 per week in such period during which he pays all the expenses of the daughter at college and while she is actually away from home at college; (2) by allowing the husband during the pendency of the action, to have, without interference, occupancy of either the city apartment maintained by him or the lakeside house, the choice to be exercised by the wife by notice in writing;' (3) by fixing the counsel fee at $3,000 and, as so modified the orders are affirmed. The injunction against the husband shall affect only the disposition of capital assets and shall not prevent transactions in the ordinary course of business. We have considered on the basis of the record before us the wife’s application to prosecute her separate appeal from that part of the order which disallows personal alimony to her, and we deny that motion. The solution to this and the other questions in the case is an early and careful trial of all the issues raised. Settle order on notice. Present — Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Breitel and Bergan, JJ. [See post, p. 760.]

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

Orders unanimously modified (1) by providing that the obligation of the husband to pay $150 for the support of the children be suspended during that part of the summer in which he pays all the expenses at camps for the maintenance of the children, and be suspended thereafter to the extent of $75 per week in such period during which he pays all the expenses of the daughter at college and while she is actually away from home at college; (2) by allowing the husband during the pendency of the action, to have, without interference, occupancy of either the city apartment maintained by him or the lakeside house, the choice to be exercised by the wife by notice in writing;' (3) by fixing the counsel fee at $3,000 and, as so modified the orders are affirmed. The injunction against the husband shall affect only the disposition of capital assets and shall not prevent transactions in the ordinary course of business. We have considered on the basis of the record before us the wife’s application to prosecute her separate appeal from that part of the order which disallows personal alimony to her, and we deny that motion. The solution to this and the other questions in the case is an early and careful trial of all the issues raised. Settle order on notice. Present — Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Breitel and Bergan, JJ. [See post, p. 760.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D. 681, 122 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenhut-v-greenhut-nyappdiv-1953.