Lynch v. Hennessy-Lynch
89 A.D.3d 689, 931 N.Y.2d 886
Opinion
[690] The 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
Lynch v. Hennessy-Lynch, 89 A.D.3d 689, 931 N.Y.2d 886 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).
89 A.D.3d 689 (Lynch v. Hennessy-Lynch) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
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)