Rowley v. Rowley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rowley v. Rowley

6 A.D.2d 1049, 179 N.Y.S.2d 269, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4618

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

DecidedOctober 14, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 6 A.D.2d 1049 (Rowley v. Rowley) 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

Rowley v. Rowley, 6 A.D.2d 1049, 179 N.Y.S.2d 269, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4618 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a separation, the appeal is from an order awarding respondent, pendente lite, $50 a week alimony, $500 counsel fees and exclusive occupancy of real property owned by the parties as tenants by the entirety. Order reversed, without costs, and motion denied, with leave to renew the application for a counsel fee on the trial. The moving papers show no necessity for payment of alimony pendente lite or counsel fees to enable respondent to carry on the action, which is an essential legal basis for such an order (Lake v. Lake, 194 N. Y. 179). On the facts presented by the moving affidavits, we believe it was an improvident exercise of discretion to award exclusive possession of the property owned by the parties as tenants by the entirety to respondent prior to a trial and without a hearing. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a separation, the appeal is from an order awarding respondent, pendente lite, $50 a week alimony, $500 counsel fees and exclusive occupancy of real property owned by the parties as tenants by the entirety. Order reversed, without costs, and motion denied, with leave to renew the application for a counsel fee on the trial. The moving papers show no necessity for payment of alimony pendente lite or counsel fees to enable respondent to carry on the action, which is an essential legal basis for such an order (Lake v. Lake, 194 N. Y. 179). On the facts presented by the moving affidavits, we believe it was an improvident exercise of discretion to award exclusive possession of the property owned by the parties as tenants by the entirety to respondent prior to a trial and without a hearing. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.2d 1049, 179 N.Y.S.2d 269, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rowley-v-rowley-nyappdiv-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack