Haffner v. Haffner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haffner v. Haffner

244 A.D.2d 527, 665 N.Y.S.2d 923, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11829

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

DecidedNovember 24, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 527 (Haffner v. Haffner) 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

Haffner v. Haffner, 244 A.D.2d 527, 665 N.Y.S.2d 923, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11829 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the husband appeals from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated February 27, 1996, as granted the wife’s motion for leave to enter a money judgment against the husband, and (2) so much of an order of the same court, also dated February 27, 1996, as denied the husband’s motion to renew a motion which resulted in an order of the same court dated December 8, 1995, which awarded the plaintiff pendente lite relief.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the husband’s contention, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying his motion to renew (see, Lieberman v Lieberman, 187 AD2d 567; Frascatore v Mione, 97 AD2d 809).

The husband’s remaining contentions are without merit. Copertino, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Lerner, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the husband appeals from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated February 27, 1996, as granted the wife’s motion for leave to enter a money judgment against the husband, and (2) so much of an order of the same court, also dated February 27, 1996, as denied the husband’s motion to renew a motion which resulted in an order of the same court dated December 8, 1995, which awarded the plaintiff pendente lite relief.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the husband’s contention, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying his motion to renew (see, Lieberman v Lieberman, 187 AD2d 567; Frascatore v Mione, 97 AD2d 809).

The husband’s remaining contentions are without merit. Copertino, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Lerner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 527, 665 N.Y.S.2d 923, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11829, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haffner-v-haffner-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack