Lo Palo v. Lo Palo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lo Palo v. Lo Palo

114 A.D.2d 887, 495 N.Y.S.2d 653, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53916

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

DecidedNovember 12, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 114 A.D.2d 887 (Lo Palo v. Lo Palo) 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

Lo Palo v. Lo Palo, 114 A.D.2d 887, 495 N.Y.S.2d 653, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53916 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated November 19, 1984, which, inter alia, granted the defendant wife’s motion for pendente lite relief to the extent of directing the plaintiff to pay $80 per week temporary maintenance and $35 per week per child for temporary child support.

Order affirmed, with costs.

A review of the record indicates that Special Term did not abuse its discretion in its grant of pendente lite relief to defendant. Furthermore, Special Term did not abuse its discretion in referring the plaintiff’s cross motion to the trial court. The ultimate disposition of the issues of maintenance, support, and the execution of a substitute second mortgage should be made after a trial (see, Ellenis v Ellenis, 76 AD2d 880; De Mato v De Mato, 101 AD2d 847). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated November 19, 1984, which, inter alia, granted the defendant wife’s motion for pendente lite relief to the extent of directing the plaintiff to pay $80 per week temporary maintenance and $35 per week per child for temporary child support.

Order affirmed, with costs.

A review of the record indicates that Special Term did not abuse its discretion in its grant of pendente lite relief to defendant. Furthermore, Special Term did not abuse its discretion in referring the plaintiff’s cross motion to the trial court. The ultimate disposition of the issues of maintenance, support, and the execution of a substitute second mortgage should be made after a trial (see, Ellenis v Ellenis, 76 AD2d 880; De Mato v De Mato, 101 AD2d 847). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.2d 887, 495 N.Y.S.2d 653, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lo-palo-v-lo-palo-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack