Masciandaro v. Masciandaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Masciandaro v. Masciandaro

168 A.D.2d 544, 563 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15633

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

DecidedDecember 17, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 168 A.D.2d 544 (Masciandaro v. Masciandaro) 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

Masciandaro v. Masciandaro, 168 A.D.2d 544, 563 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15633 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated April 24, 1975, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kitson, J.), dated May 12, 1989, as amended May 22, 1989, which granted the defendant’s motion, inter alia, to modify the judgment of divorce by vacating the provision thereof awarding her and the parties’ two children exclusive occupancy of the marital residence.

Ordered that the order, as amended, is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, we find that the defendant’s request to modify the parties’ judgment of divorce to vacate the provision which granted the plaintiff and the parties’ children exclusive occupancy of the marital residence was properly granted for reasons stated by Justice Kitson (see, Sherman v Sherman, 168 AD2d 550 [decided herewith]).

The plaintiff’s other contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated April 24, 1975, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kitson, J.), dated May 12, 1989, as amended May 22, 1989, which granted the defendant’s motion, inter alia, to modify the judgment of divorce by vacating the provision thereof awarding her and the parties’ two children exclusive occupancy of the marital residence.

Ordered that the order, as amended, is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, we find that the defendant’s request to modify the parties’ judgment of divorce to vacate the provision which granted the plaintiff and the parties’ children exclusive occupancy of the marital residence was properly granted for reasons stated by Justice Kitson (see, Sherman v Sherman, 168 AD2d 550 [decided herewith]).

The plaintiff’s other contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D.2d 544, 563 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/masciandaro-v-masciandaro-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack