Shiff v. Shiff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shiff v. Shiff

190 A.D.2d 786, 594 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1521

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 190 A.D.2d 786 (Shiff v. Shiff) 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

Shiff v. Shiff, 190 A.D.2d 786, 594 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1521 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.) dated December 4, 1990, which, inter alia, granted the defendant wife’s motion for custody of the parties’ child pendente lite.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

[787]*787The proper remedy for the inequities alleged by the husband in the pendente lite determination as to custody and visitation is a speedy trial at which a more detailed examination of the circumstances of the parties may be conducted (see, Aquart v Aquart, 182 AD2d 735; Caviolo v Caviolo, 155 AD2d 410; Sherman v Sherman, 135 AD2d 806). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.) dated December 4, 1990, which, inter alia, granted the defendant wife’s motion for custody of the parties’ child pendente lite.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

[787]*787The proper remedy for the inequities alleged by the husband in the pendente lite determination as to custody and visitation is a speedy trial at which a more detailed examination of the circumstances of the parties may be conducted (see, Aquart v Aquart, 182 AD2d 735; Caviolo v Caviolo, 155 AD2d 410; Sherman v Sherman, 135 AD2d 806). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 A.D.2d 786, 594 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shiff-v-shiff-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack