Sklar v. Sklar

249 A.D. 198, 291 N.Y.S. 851, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5071
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 11, 1936
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 249 A.D. 198 (Sklar v. Sklar) 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
Sklar v. Sklar, 249 A.D. 198, 291 N.Y.S. 851, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5071 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

While the complaint is inartistically drawn, we believe that it is sufficient. The cross-motion, however, should have been granted to the extent of requiring plaintiff to separately state and number her causes of action. The amended complaint when served should comply with rule 280 of the Rules of Civil Practice.

The order should be modified by reducing the alimony pendente lite to the sum of thirty dollars per week, and by granting the cross-motion to the extent of requiring plaintiff to serve an amended complaint within twenty days from service of a copy of the order hereon, in accordance with the foregoing memorandum, and in all other respects the order appealed from should be affirmed, without costs.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Glennon and Cohn, JJ.

[199]*199Order unanimously modified by reducing the alimony pendente lite to the sum of thirty dollars per week and by granting the cross-motion to the extent of requiring plaintiff to serve an amended complaint within twenty days after service of order with notice of entry, and in all other respects affirmed, without costs.

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

Related

Maas v. Maas
5 Misc. 2d 840 (New York Supreme Court, 1957)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
249 A.D. 198, 291 N.Y.S. 851, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5071, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sklar-v-sklar-nyappdiv-1936.