Seligmann v. Seligmann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seligmann v. Seligmann

255 A.D. 277, 7 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4715

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 4, 1938·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The complaint is insufficient in that it does not specify the nature and circumstances of defendant’s misconduct, or set forth the time and place of the acts complained of. (Rules Civ. Prac. rule 280.) Furthermore, the affidavits fail to show the probability of plaintiff’s success at the trial, or the necessity at present of an allowance for support pendente lite.

The order should be reversed and the motion for alimony and counsel fee denied.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Dore and Callahan, JJ.

Order unanimously reversed and motion denied.

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

Per Curiam.

The complaint is insufficient in that it does not specify the nature and circumstances of defendant’s misconduct, or set forth the time and place of the acts complained of. (Rules Civ. Prac. rule 280.) Furthermore, the affidavits fail to show the probability of plaintiff’s success at the trial, or the necessity at present of an allowance for support pendente lite.

The order should be reversed and the motion for alimony and counsel fee denied.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Dore and Callahan, JJ.

Order unanimously reversed and motion denied.

Seligmann v. Seligmann, 255 A.D. 277, 7 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4715 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

255 A.D. 277 (Seligmann v. Seligmann) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related