Kasper v. Kasper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kasper v. Kasper

41 A.D.2d 841, 342 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4782

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

DecidedApril 9, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 41 A.D.2d 841 (Kasper v. Kasper) 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

Kasper v. Kasper, 41 A.D.2d 841, 342 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4782 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for divorce, defendant appeals from an order of .the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated December 15, 1972, which granted plaintiff’s motion for temporary alimony, child custody and support, and a counsel fee. Order affirmed, without costs. Any seeming inequity in a temporary order for alimony and support is to be remedied by a speedy trial where the rights of the parties can be finally determined (Mezzasalma v. Mezmsalma, 40 A D 2d 1018; Fleisig v. Fleisig, 4() A D 2d 609). Defendant, of course, is not precluded from making any application to Special Term with respect to visitation that he may deem appropriate. Munder, Acting P. J., Latham, Gulotta, Christ and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for divorce, defendant appeals from an order of .the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated December 15, 1972, which granted plaintiff’s motion for temporary alimony, child custody and support, and a counsel fee. Order affirmed, without costs. Any seeming inequity in a temporary order for alimony and support is to be remedied by a speedy trial where the rights of the parties can be finally determined (Mezzasalma v. Mezmsalma, 40 A D 2d 1018; Fleisig v. Fleisig, 4() A D 2d 609). Defendant, of course, is not precluded from making any application to Special Term with respect to visitation that he may deem appropriate. Munder, Acting P. J., Latham, Gulotta, Christ and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 841, 342 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kasper-v-kasper-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack