Susskind v. Susskind

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Susskind v. Susskind

54 A.D.2d 833, 388 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14582

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

DecidedNovember 4, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.2d 833 (Susskind v. Susskind) 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

Susskind v. Susskind, 54 A.D.2d 833, 388 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14582 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on May 3, 1976, inter alia, granting plaintiff temporary alimony and child support and denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of reducing the alimony pendente lite award to $750 a week, and otherwise affirmed for essentially the reasons stated by Special Term, without costs or disbursements. Upon the record before us $750 is sufficient pending a trial where the defendant’s finances can be evaluated more extensively. We have examined the other points raised by defendant and find them lacking in merit. Under the circumstances presented we find a sufficient basis for personal jurisdiction over defendant (CPLR 302, subd [b]) and no abuse of discretion in denying a change of venue to Suffolk County. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Lupiano, Birns and Nunez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on May 3, 1976, inter alia, granting plaintiff temporary alimony and child support and denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of reducing the alimony pendente lite award to $750 a week, and otherwise affirmed for essentially the reasons stated by Special Term, without costs or disbursements. Upon the record before us $750 is sufficient pending a trial where the defendant’s finances can be evaluated more extensively. We have examined the other points raised by defendant and find them lacking in merit. Under the circumstances presented we find a sufficient basis for personal jurisdiction over defendant (CPLR 302, subd [b]) and no abuse of discretion in denying a change of venue to Suffolk County. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Lupiano, Birns and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 833, 388 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/susskind-v-susskind-nyappdiv-1976.