Hurwitz v. Hurwitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hurwitz v. Hurwitz

2 A.D.2d 965, 158 N.Y.S.2d 748

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

DecidedDecember 11, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.2d 965 (Hurwitz v. Hurwitz) 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

Hurwitz v. Hurwitz, 2 A.D.2d 965, 158 N.Y.S.2d 748 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

The parties to this action are in such circumstances that the fixing of alimony, counsel fee and amount of support for the child, may and should await final determination of the action for separation. This will work no hardship and at such time, any award made for any or all of the items will be retroactive. We assume, of course, that defendant will continue to pay $75 weekly, the amount which was fixed in the order of the Domestic Relations Court. Order unanimously reversed, with costs to abide the event, and the questions of alimony, counsel fee and amount of support for the child are left for the trier of the facts. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, J. P., Rabin, Frank, Valente and Bergan, JJ.

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

The parties to this action are in such circumstances that the fixing of alimony, counsel fee and amount of support for the child, may and should await final determination of the action for separation. This will work no hardship and at such time, any award made for any or all of the items will be retroactive. We assume, of course, that defendant will continue to pay $75 weekly, the amount which was fixed in the order of the Domestic Relations Court. Order unanimously reversed, with costs to abide the event, and the questions of alimony, counsel fee and amount of support for the child are left for the trier of the facts. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, J. P., Rabin, Frank, Valente and Bergan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.2d 965, 158 N.Y.S.2d 748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hurwitz-v-hurwitz-nyappdiv-1956.