Nelson v. Nelson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nelson v. Nelson

57 A.D.2d 529, 393 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11441

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

DecidedApril 19, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.2d 529 (Nelson v. Nelson) 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

Nelson v. Nelson, 57 A.D.2d 529, 393 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11441 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County, each entered on February 3, 1977, denying plaintiffs motion for a trial preference or alternate relief, and denying her motion for exclusive occupancy of the márital apartment, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. This case does not appear to be ready for trial, and, accordingly, Special Term did not abuse its discretion in denying a trial preference. Nor did it err in denying the alternate and additional relief sought. The present record indicates that plaintiff withdrew a substantial - sum of money from the parties’ joint accounts, had the lease to the marital apartment changed to her name and that relief similar to that now sought had been denied her just several weeks earlier by another Justice at Special Term. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Lupiano, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

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

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County, each entered on February 3, 1977, denying plaintiffs motion for a trial preference or alternate relief, and denying her motion for exclusive occupancy of the márital apartment, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. This case does not appear to be ready for trial, and, accordingly, Special Term did not abuse its discretion in denying a trial preference. Nor did it err in denying the alternate and additional relief sought. The present record indicates that plaintiff withdrew a substantial - sum of money from the parties’ joint accounts, had the lease to the marital apartment changed to her name and that relief similar to that now sought had been denied her just several weeks earlier by another Justice at Special Term. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Lupiano, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 529, 393 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nelson-v-nelson-nyappdiv-1977.