Rosenberg v. Rosenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosenberg v. Rosenberg

39 A.D.2d 737, 332 N.Y.S.2d 615, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4689

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

DecidedMay 8, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.2d 737 (Rosenberg v. Rosenberg) 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

Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 39 A.D.2d 737, 332 N.Y.S.2d 615, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4689 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 19, 1970, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia granted plaintiff a separation on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment and awarded plaintiff alimony and counsel fees, except that defendant does not appeal from the provision therein which granted the separation. Case remanded to Special Term for determination of defendant’s two counterclaims; and appeal held in abeyance in the interim. In our opinion, resolution of the appeal, involving, as it does, review of a number of matrimonial awards made in plaintiff’s favor, should await resolution of defendant’s counterclaims, which, apparently through inadvertence, Special Term failed to resolve. Munder, Acting P. J., Gulotta, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 19, 1970, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia granted plaintiff a separation on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment and awarded plaintiff alimony and counsel fees, except that defendant does not appeal from the provision therein which granted the separation. Case remanded to Special Term for determination of defendant’s two counterclaims; and appeal held in abeyance in the interim. In our opinion, resolution of the appeal, involving, as it does, review of a number of matrimonial awards made in plaintiff’s favor, should await resolution of defendant’s counterclaims, which, apparently through inadvertence, Special Term failed to resolve. Munder, Acting P. J., Gulotta, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 737, 332 N.Y.S.2d 615, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenberg-v-rosenberg-nyappdiv-1972.