Kranjac v. Kranjac

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kranjac v. Kranjac

259 A.D.2d 523, 684 N.Y.S.2d 899, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2190

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D.2d 523 (Kranjac v. Kranjac) 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

Kranjac v. Kranjac, 259 A.D.2d 523, 684 N.Y.S.2d 899, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2190 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Brien, J.), entered December 30, 1997, which denied her motion, inter alia, to enjoin the distribution of the proceeds of the sale of the defendant’s business pending the determination of the action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

While we do not condone the husband’s violation of the parties’ "so ordered” stipulation, under the particular circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improperly deny the relief requested by the wife on the instant motion. Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Brien, J.), entered December 30, 1997, which denied her motion, inter alia, to enjoin the distribution of the proceeds of the sale of the defendant’s business pending the determination of the action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

While we do not condone the husband’s violation of the parties’ "so ordered” stipulation, under the particular circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improperly deny the relief requested by the wife on the instant motion. Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 523, 684 N.Y.S.2d 899, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kranjac-v-kranjac-nyappdiv-1999.