Lunenfeld v. Lunenfeld

New York Supreme Court

Lunenfeld v. Lunenfeld

137 Misc. 419, 242 N.Y.S. 279, 1930 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1301

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 17, 1930

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 137 Misc. 419 (Lunenfeld v. Lunenfeld) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lunenfeld v. Lunenfeld, 137 Misc. 419, 242 N.Y.S. 279, 1930 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1301 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Lewis, J.

The defendant has made all payments of alimony

pursuant to the order in the separation suit until the entry of the interlocutory decree of annulment in his favor. The latter decree did not dissolve the marriage. (Matter of Crandall, 196 N. Y. 127.) Nor did it affect the provision made for the payment of temporary alimony in the wife’s action. (Burton v. Burton, 150 App. Div. 790, 791.) The defendant should have moved for an order reheving him from the payment of alimony after the entry of the interlocutory judgment of annulment. Had such a motion been made it would undoubtedly have been granted, for it does not appear that the interlocutory judgment was erroneously granted or would be reversed on appeal. (Poss v. Poss, 164 App. Div. 213.) Jn the exercise of discretion, therefore, the motion to punish the defendant for contempt is denied.

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

Lewis, J.

The defendant has made all payments of alimony

pursuant to the order in the separation suit until the entry of the interlocutory decree of annulment in his favor. The latter decree did not dissolve the marriage. (Matter of Crandall, 196 N. Y. 127.) Nor did it affect the provision made for the payment of temporary alimony in the wife’s action. (Burton v. Burton, 150 App. Div. 790, 791.) The defendant should have moved for an order reheving him from the payment of alimony after the entry of the interlocutory judgment of annulment. Had such a motion been made it would undoubtedly have been granted, for it does not appear that the interlocutory judgment was erroneously granted or would be reversed on appeal. (Poss v. Poss, 164 App. Div. 213.) Jn the exercise of discretion, therefore, the motion to punish the defendant for contempt is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 Misc. 419, 242 N.Y.S. 279, 1930 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lunenfeld-v-lunenfeld-nysupct-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack