Rappeport v. Rappeport

46 A.D.2d 756, 360 N.Y.S.2d 694, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3650
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 12, 1974
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 46 A.D.2d 756 (Rappeport v. Rappeport) 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
Rappeport v. Rappeport, 46 A.D.2d 756, 360 N.Y.S.2d 694, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3650 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 6, 1974, insofar as appealed from, which among other things, awarded defendant wife temporary alimony and also directed plaintiff to continue to make payments of mortgage interest and amortization, taxes and insurance on defendant’s residence in Searsdale, New York, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of reducing the award of temporary alimony to $150 per week, commencing with the date of publication of the decision herein; and except as so modified the order is affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Upon the record before us, giving due consideration to all [757]*757of the relevant circumstances, the award of temporary alimony in the order appealed from was excessive and should be reduced to the extent indicated herein. We reiterate that any seeming inequity in a temporary award of alimony, based upon conflicting affidavits, is to be remedied by a speedy trial, where the true facts concerning the finances and standard of living of the parties can more accurately be ascertained. (Gross v. Gross, 44 A D 2d 806.) Moreover, the reduced award of temporary alimony should have no effect in the determination at the trial as to the grant of permanent alimony or the amount thereof, which determination should rest upon the evidence adduced at the trial. Concur — McG-ivern, P. J., Markewich, Kupferman, Lupiano and Steuer, JJ.

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

Related

Merrick v. Merrick
172 A.D.2d 317 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Eisenberg v. Eisenberg
169 A.D.2d 588 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Sayer v. Sayer
130 A.D.2d 407 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Baker v. Baker
120 A.D.2d 374 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Getson v. Getson
91 A.D.2d 540 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Morrison v. Morrison
64 A.D.2d 597 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
Brandt v. Brandt
63 A.D.2d 901 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
Macken v. Macken
63 A.D.2d 874 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
46 A.D.2d 756, 360 N.Y.S.2d 694, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rappeport-v-rappeport-nyappdiv-1974.