Kunzer v. Kunzer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kunzer v. Kunzer

285 A.D. 1022, 139 N.Y.S.2d 905, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6540

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

DecidedApril 12, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D. 1022 (Kunzer v. Kunzer) 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

Kunzer v. Kunzer, 285 A.D. 1022, 139 N.Y.S.2d 905, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6540 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified so as to allow injunctive relief to continue only until the trial and disposition of the separation action. In the present state of the pleadings, plaintiff would not be entitled to a permanent injunction. If permanent injunctive relief is sought, a supplemental pleading must be served and should be filed forthwith. At the trial of the separation suit, the court may determine upon the proof submitted whether plaintiff, if successful, is also entitled to permanent injunctive relief. This action, which has already been too long delayed, should be promptly tried. Settle order on notice. Present — Peck, P. J., Cohn, Breitel, Bastow and Rabin, JJ. [See post, p. 1129.]

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

Order unanimously modified so as to allow injunctive relief to continue only until the trial and disposition of the separation action. In the present state of the pleadings, plaintiff would not be entitled to a permanent injunction. If permanent injunctive relief is sought, a supplemental pleading must be served and should be filed forthwith. At the trial of the separation suit, the court may determine upon the proof submitted whether plaintiff, if successful, is also entitled to permanent injunctive relief. This action, which has already been too long delayed, should be promptly tried. Settle order on notice. Present — Peck, P. J., Cohn, Breitel, Bastow and Rabin, JJ. [See post, p. 1129.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D. 1022, 139 N.Y.S.2d 905, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kunzer-v-kunzer-nyappdiv-1955.