Hauptman v. Hauptman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hauptman v. Hauptman

151 A.D.2d 644, 543 N.Y.S.2d 932, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8140

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 19, 1989·Published

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Benson, J.), dated July 18, 1988, as granted the plaintiff wife’s motion for certain pendente lite relief.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

On the instant record, which includes conflicting affidavits, there is no reason to substitute our discretion for that of the Supreme Court. Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Rubin, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, 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 defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Benson, J.), dated July 18, 1988, as granted the plaintiff wife’s motion for certain pendente lite relief.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

On the instant record, which includes conflicting affidavits, there is no reason to substitute our discretion for that of the Supreme Court. Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Rubin, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Hauptman v. Hauptman, 151 A.D.2d 644, 543 N.Y.S.2d 932, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8140 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

151 A.D.2d 644 (Hauptman v. Hauptman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.