Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Lynch v. Hennessy-Lynch

Lynch v. Hennessy-Lynch

89 A.D.3d 689, 931 N.Y.2d 886
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 1, 2011
StatusPublished

This text of 89 A.D.3d 689 (Lynch v. Hennessy-Lynch) 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
Lynch v. Hennessy-Lynch, 89 A.D.3d 689, 931 N.Y.2d 886 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

[690]*690The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff husband’s motion which was for pendente lite exclusive use and occupancy of the marital home (see Pascazi v Pascazi, 52 AD3d 664 [2008]; Shanon v Patterson, 294 AD2d 485, 486 [2002]; Preston v Preston, 147 AD2d 464, 465 [1989]; Kristiansen v Kristiansen, 144 AD2d 441, 442 [1988]). Angiolillo, J.E, Florio, Leventhal and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Pascazi v. Pascazi
52 A.D.3d 664 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Kristiansen v. Kristiansen
144 A.D.2d 441 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Preston v. Preston
147 A.D.2d 464 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Shanon v. Patterson
294 A.D.2d 485 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
89 A.D.3d 689, 931 N.Y.2d 886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lynch-v-hennessy-lynch-nyappdiv-2011.