Harari v. Davis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harari v. Davis

59 A.D.3d 182, 871 N.Y.S.2d 907

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 59 A.D.3d 182 (Harari v. Davis) 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

Harari v. Davis, 59 A.D.3d 182, 871 N.Y.S.2d 907 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura E. Drager, J.), entered March 13, 2007, which denied respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for a determination on the issues of custody and child support, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to respondent’s argument, where there has been a showing that an award is necessary to maintain the reasonable needs of the children during the litigation, the court has jurisdiction to prospectively adjudicate child custody and child support issues despite the fact that the unmarried parties continue to live together with their children (see Koerner v Koerner, 170 AD2d 297, 297-298 [1991]).

Motion seeking stay pending appeal denied. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura E. Drager, J.), entered March 13, 2007, which denied respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for a determination on the issues of custody and child support, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to respondent’s argument, where there has been a showing that an award is necessary to maintain the reasonable needs of the children during the litigation, the court has jurisdiction to prospectively adjudicate child custody and child support issues despite the fact that the unmarried parties continue to live together with their children (see Koerner v Koerner, 170 AD2d 297, 297-298 [1991]).

Motion seeking stay pending appeal denied. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.3d 182, 871 N.Y.S.2d 907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harari-v-davis-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack