Sears v. Sears

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sears v. Sears

34 A.D.2d 962, 312 N.Y.S.2d 397, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4654

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

DecidedJune 1, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.2d 962 (Sears v. Sears) 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

Sears v. Sears, 34 A.D.2d 962, 312 N.Y.S.2d 397, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4654 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for divorce, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the -Supreme Court, Queens County, entered November 19, 1969, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original decision awarding her temporary alimony and child support and a counsel fee. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. In our opinion, appellant is not precluded from application to the trial court for additional counsel fees. We do not construe the order in question as expressly precluding the making of such application. The temporary alimony award in this case is rather low, but this court frowns upon appeals taken for the purpose of questioning such pendente lite awards. As was observed in Gentile v. Gentile (19 A D 2d 825), " The best protection to both parties against any unfairness in the -fixing of temporary alimony on the basis of affidavits is a speedy trial rather than an appeal.” (See, also, Zeitlan v. Zeitlan, 27 A D 2d 846.) Rabin, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Kleinfeld and Benjamin, JJ., concur; Latham, J., not voting.

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

In an action for divorce, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the -Supreme Court, Queens County, entered November 19, 1969, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original decision awarding her temporary alimony and child support and a counsel fee. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. In our opinion, appellant is not precluded from application to the trial court for additional counsel fees. We do not construe the order in question as expressly precluding the making of such application. The temporary alimony award in this case is rather low, but this court frowns upon appeals taken for the purpose of questioning such pendente lite awards. As was observed in Gentile v. Gentile (19 A D 2d 825), " The best protection to both parties against any unfairness in the -fixing of temporary alimony on the basis of affidavits is a speedy trial rather than an appeal.” (See, also, Zeitlan v. Zeitlan, 27 A D 2d 846.) Rabin, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Kleinfeld and Benjamin, JJ., concur; Latham, J., not voting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 962, 312 N.Y.S.2d 397, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sears-v-sears-nyappdiv-1970.