Mezzasalma v. Mezzasalma

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mezzasalma v. Mezzasalma

40 A.D.2d 1018, 339 N.Y.S.2d 653, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3012

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

DecidedDecember 26, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.2d 1018 (Mezzasalma v. Mezzasalma) 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

Mezzasalma v. Mezzasalma, 40 A.D.2d 1018, 339 N.Y.S.2d 653, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3012 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for divorce, the parties cross-appeal from separate parts of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered August 2, 1972, which granted the branch of plaintiffs motion which was for temporary alimony, child support and payment of carrying charges on the marital home, to a limited extent, and denied the remainder of the motion, i.e., for exclusive custody of the children and the home and for a counsel fee. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. Neither Special Term’s award of temporary alimony and this court’s affirmance herein of that award should have any effect upon the Trial Justice as to whether permanent alimony should be awarded and as to the amount thereof, if awarded (Hofflich v. Hofflich, 38 A D 2d 573). Any seeming inequity in a temporary order for alimony is to be remedied by a speedy trial where the rights of the parties can be finally determined (Fleisig v. Fleisig, 40 A D 2d 609). Munder, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Shapiro, Gulotta and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for divorce, the parties cross-appeal from separate parts of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered August 2, 1972, which granted the branch of plaintiffs motion which was for temporary alimony, child support and payment of carrying charges on the marital home, to a limited extent, and denied the remainder of the motion, i.e., for exclusive custody of the children and the home and for a counsel fee. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. Neither Special Term’s award of temporary alimony and this court’s affirmance herein of that award should have any effect upon the Trial Justice as to whether permanent alimony should be awarded and as to the amount thereof, if awarded (Hofflich v. Hofflich, 38 A D 2d 573). Any seeming inequity in a temporary order for alimony is to be remedied by a speedy trial where the rights of the parties can be finally determined (Fleisig v. Fleisig, 40 A D 2d 609). Munder, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Shapiro, Gulotta and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 1018, 339 N.Y.S.2d 653, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3012, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mezzasalma-v-mezzasalma-nyappdiv-1972.