Held v. Held

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Held v. Held

170 A.D.2d 310

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 170 A.D.2d 310 (Held v. Held) 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

Held v. Held, 170 A.D.2d 310 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter M. Schackman, J.), entered on August 30, 1990, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiff exclusive possession of the marital apartment, pendente lite, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court’s finding that an award of exclusive possession to plaintiff was necessary to protect the best interests of the child of the marriage was based on the presence of extreme domestic strife caused by defendant’s repeated physical and verbal attacks on plaintiff (Delli Venneri v Delli Venneri, 120 AD2d 238). Although plaintiff’s hearing testimony was contradicted in part by defendant, we find that the record contains sufficient credible evidence to justify an award of temporary exclusive possession to plaintiff, and provides no basis for any interference with the court’s sound exercise of its discretion based upon its evaluation of the testimony before it. The remedy here is a speedy trial. Concur—Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter M. Schackman, J.), entered on August 30, 1990, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiff exclusive possession of the marital apartment, pendente lite, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court’s finding that an award of exclusive possession to plaintiff was necessary to protect the best interests of the child of the marriage was based on the presence of extreme domestic strife caused by defendant’s repeated physical and verbal attacks on plaintiff (Delli Venneri v Delli Venneri, 120 AD2d 238). Although plaintiff’s hearing testimony was contradicted in part by defendant, we find that the record contains sufficient credible evidence to justify an award of temporary exclusive possession to plaintiff, and provides no basis for any interference with the court’s sound exercise of its discretion based upon its evaluation of the testimony before it. The remedy here is a speedy trial. Concur—Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 A.D.2d 310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/held-v-held-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack