Siegal v. Siegal

74 A.D.2d 867, 426 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10647
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 17, 1980
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 74 A.D.2d 867 (Siegal v. Siegal) 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
Siegal v. Siegal, 74 A.D.2d 867, 426 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10647 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 16, 1979, as awarded the defendant wife exclusive occupancy of the marital residence, pendente lite, and temporary alimony in the amount of $100 per week, and (2) a further order of the same court, dated November 8, 1979, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination. Appeal from the order dated October 16, 1979, dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements. That order was superseded by the order granting reargument. Order dated November 8, 1979 modified by adding thereto, immediately after the provision adhering to the original determination, the following: "except that so much of the prior order as granted the defendant wife exclusive occupancy of the marital premises during the pendency of the [868]*868action is deleted.” As so modified, said order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements and without prejudice to either party applying for a trial preference pursuant to 22 NYCRR 785.9. On the basis of the evidence adduced at Special Term, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to award the defendant exclusive occupancy of the marital premises owned by the parties as tenants by the entirety prior to trial and without a hearing (see Scampoli v Scampoli, 37 AD2d 614; cf. Minims v Minnus, 63 AD2d 966). Damiani, J. P., Gulotta, Margett and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Preston v. Preston
147 A.D.2d 464 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Blumenfeld v. Blumenfeld
96 A.D.2d 895 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Harkavy v. Harkavy
93 A.D.2d 879 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Hite v. Hite
89 A.D.2d 577 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
74 A.D.2d 867, 426 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siegal-v-siegal-nyappdiv-1980.