Lemke v. Lemke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lemke v. Lemke

115 A.D.2d 1006, 497 N.Y.S.2d 569, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55401

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 115 A.D.2d 1006 (Lemke v. Lemke) 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

Lemke v. Lemke, 115 A.D.2d 1006, 497 N.Y.S.2d 569, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55401 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified, on the law, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Plaintiff failed to make an adequate showing that Janice R. Lemke and Robert E. Levi are currently seeking to dispose of possible marital assets. Thus we modify the order by deleting the provision restraining them from transferring or otherwise disposing of marital property in their possession until a full accounting may be had thereof following the trial of the action (see, Steinberg v Steinberg, 87 AD2d 782, appeal dismissed 57 NY2d 673). It was within the court’s discretion to permit Robert E. Levi to be added as a party defendant (see, Schmidt v Schmidt, 99 AD2d 775) and to require inventory appraisal of alleged marital property. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Ostrowski, J. —amend complaint.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, O’Donnell, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified, on the law, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Plaintiff failed to make an adequate showing that Janice R. Lemke and Robert E. Levi are currently seeking to dispose of possible marital assets. Thus we modify the order by deleting the provision restraining them from transferring or otherwise disposing of marital property in their possession until a full accounting may be had thereof following the trial of the action (see, Steinberg v Steinberg, 87 AD2d 782, appeal dismissed 57 NY2d 673). It was within the court’s discretion to permit Robert E. Levi to be added as a party defendant (see, Schmidt v Schmidt, 99 AD2d 775) and to require inventory appraisal of alleged marital property. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Ostrowski, J. —amend complaint.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, O’Donnell, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.2d 1006, 497 N.Y.S.2d 569, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lemke-v-lemke-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack