Holzer v. Holzer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Holzer v. Holzer

66 A.D.2d 675, 411 N.Y.S.2d 194, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13938

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 66 A.D.2d 675 (Holzer v. Holzer) 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

Holzer v. Holzer, 66 A.D.2d 675, 411 N.Y.S.2d 194, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13938 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 27, 1978, granting plaintifi's application and directing payment of $750 per week as temporary alimony and child support, unanimously modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of reducing the amount to $350 per week unallocated alimony and support retroactive to December 29, 1977, without credit for overpayments, and otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements. We find that, under all the facts and circumstances, the amount awarded pendente lite was excessive to the extent indicated. The parties are directed to proceed to trial expeditiously, where the finances of the parties can be more clearly ascertained and a permanent award made. Concur-Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Silverman, Fein and Lane, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 27, 1978, granting plaintifi's application and directing payment of $750 per week as temporary alimony and child support, unanimously modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of reducing the amount to $350 per week unallocated alimony and support retroactive to December 29, 1977, without credit for overpayments, and otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements. We find that, under all the facts and circumstances, the amount awarded pendente lite was excessive to the extent indicated. The parties are directed to proceed to trial expeditiously, where the finances of the parties can be more clearly ascertained and a permanent award made. Concur-Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Silverman, Fein and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 A.D.2d 675, 411 N.Y.S.2d 194, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13938, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holzer-v-holzer-nyappdiv-1978.