Schwartz v. Schwartz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schwartz v. Schwartz

59 A.D.2d 905, 399 N.Y.S.2d 138, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14107

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 14, 1977·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for divorce, the plaintiff wife appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated February 7, 1977, which denied «her motion for temporary alimony and counsel fees, and (2) a further order of the same court, dated April 14, 1977, which denied her motion for reargument. Appeal from the order dated April 14, 1977 dismissed, without costs or disbursements. No appeal lies from an order denying a motion to reargue. Order dated February 7, 1977 affirmed, without costs or disbursements. A review of the record on appeal indicates that the denial of plaintiff-appellant’s motion for temporary alimony and counsel fees was not an abuse of discretion. The remedy for any seeming inequity in this case is to proceed to a speedy trial (see La Pommeray v La Pommeray, 56 AD2d 838; Margulies v Margulies, 52 AD2d 567; Thomases v Thomases, 51 AD2d 753). A trial should be held without delay. Margett, J. P., Rabin, Titone and Mollen, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for divorce, the plaintiff wife appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated February 7, 1977, which denied «her motion for temporary alimony and counsel fees, and (2) a further order of the same court, dated April 14, 1977, which denied her motion for reargument. Appeal from the order dated April 14, 1977 dismissed, without costs or disbursements. No appeal lies from an order denying a motion to reargue. Order dated February 7, 1977 affirmed, without costs or disbursements. A review of the record on appeal indicates that the denial of plaintiff-appellant’s motion for temporary alimony and counsel fees was not an abuse of discretion. The remedy for any seeming inequity in this case is to proceed to a speedy trial (see La Pommeray v La Pommeray, 56 AD2d 838; Margulies v Margulies, 52 AD2d 567; Thomases v Thomases, 51 AD2d 753). A trial should be held without delay. Margett, J. P., Rabin, Titone and Mollen, JJ., concur.

Schwartz v. Schwartz, 59 A.D.2d 905, 399 N.Y.S.2d 138, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14107 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

59 A.D.2d 905 (Schwartz v. Schwartz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related