Prothers v. Prothers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Prothers v. Prothers

283 A.D. 747, 127 N.Y.S.2d 923, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5135

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 1954

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 283 A.D. 747 (Prothers v. Prothers) 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

Prothers v. Prothers, 283 A.D. 747, 127 N.Y.S.2d 923, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5135 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Respondent was awarded a separation from appellant by a judgment dated January 16, 1953. The order appealed from, dated December 10,1953, adjudged appellant in contempt of court for having failed to pay alimony pendente lite, required him to furnish security and to pay a counsel fee. Order modified by striking therefrom the first six ordering paragraphs and, as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs. Enforcement by contempt proceedings of an order providing for alimony pendente lite is not permitted after entry of final judgment in the action. (Mittman v. Mittman, 263 App. Div. 384.) Under the circumstances, the furnishing of security should not have been ordered. Nolan, P. J., Adel, Wenzel, MacCrate and Murphy, JJ., concur.

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

Respondent was awarded a separation from appellant by a judgment dated January 16, 1953. The order appealed from, dated December 10,1953, adjudged appellant in contempt of court for having failed to pay alimony pendente lite, required him to furnish security and to pay a counsel fee. Order modified by striking therefrom the first six ordering paragraphs and, as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs. Enforcement by contempt proceedings of an order providing for alimony pendente lite is not permitted after entry of final judgment in the action. (Mittman v. Mittman, 263 App. Div. 384.) Under the circumstances, the furnishing of security should not have been ordered. Nolan, P. J., Adel, Wenzel, MacCrate and Murphy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D. 747, 127 N.Y.S.2d 923, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prothers-v-prothers-nyappdiv-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack