Schultz v. Schultz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schultz v. Schultz

1 A.D.2d 930, 150 N.Y.S.2d 568, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6132

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 930 (Schultz v. Schultz) 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

Schultz v. Schultz, 1 A.D.2d 930, 150 N.Y.S.2d 568, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6132 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered June 1,1955, as modified by order entered June 21, 1955, affirmed with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur, except Kimball, J., who concurs as to the provision for counsel fees but dissents and votes for reversal of the order insofar as it allows temporary alimony, in the following memorandum: Insofar as the order appealed from allows alimony pendente lite in this action by the wife for a separation, I dissent. When the plaintiff commenced this action, both parties were living at the marital domicile. Under such circumstances, I do not think the plaintiff wife is entitled to temporary alimony. (Berman v. Berman, 277 App. Div. 560; Sommer v. Sommer, 285 App. Div. 809; Friedman v. Friedman, 285 App. Div. 938.) (Appeal from two orders of Niagara Special Term (1) granting temporary alimony for the support of plaintiff and her son, and counsel fees, and (2) denying defendant’s motion to modify the previous order and directing plaintiff to pay from the temporary alimony certain expenses as to the real estate of which she was given the use.) Present — McCurn, P. J., Kimball, Wheeler and Williams, JJ.

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

Order entered June 1,1955, as modified by order entered June 21, 1955, affirmed with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur, except Kimball, J., who concurs as to the provision for counsel fees but dissents and votes for reversal of the order insofar as it allows temporary alimony, in the following memorandum: Insofar as the order appealed from allows alimony pendente lite in this action by the wife for a separation, I dissent. When the plaintiff commenced this action, both parties were living at the marital domicile. Under such circumstances, I do not think the plaintiff wife is entitled to temporary alimony. (Berman v. Berman, 277 App. Div. 560; Sommer v. Sommer, 285 App. Div. 809; Friedman v. Friedman, 285 App. Div. 938.) (Appeal from two orders of Niagara Special Term (1) granting temporary alimony for the support of plaintiff and her son, and counsel fees, and (2) denying defendant’s motion to modify the previous order and directing plaintiff to pay from the temporary alimony certain expenses as to the real estate of which she was given the use.) Present — McCurn, P. J., Kimball, Wheeler and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 930, 150 N.Y.S.2d 568, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schultz-v-schultz-nyappdiv-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack