Tillinger v. Tillinger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tillinger v. Tillinger

120 A.D.2d 584, 502 N.Y.S.2d 493, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56670

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

DecidedMay 12, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 120 A.D.2d 584 (Tillinger v. Tillinger) 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

Tillinger v. Tillinger, 120 A.D.2d 584, 502 N.Y.S.2d 493, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56670 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a matrimonial action, the defendant husband appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.), dated April 23, 1985, as vacated so much of a prior order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Cohen, J.), dated November 12, 1982, as awarded him exclusive occupancy of the parties’ marital residence.

Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In view of the absence of sufficient evidence to establish that an award of the exclusive possession of the marital residence to the defendant was necessary to protect the safety of persons or property, Special Term did not err in its ruling (see, Blumenfeld v Blumenfeld, 96 AD2d 895; cf King v King, 109 AD2d 779). Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano and Thompson, JJ., concur.

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

— In a matrimonial action, the defendant husband appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.), dated April 23, 1985, as vacated so much of a prior order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Cohen, J.), dated November 12, 1982, as awarded him exclusive occupancy of the parties’ marital residence.

Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In view of the absence of sufficient evidence to establish that an award of the exclusive possession of the marital residence to the defendant was necessary to protect the safety of persons or property, Special Term did not err in its ruling (see, Blumenfeld v Blumenfeld, 96 AD2d 895; cf King v King, 109 AD2d 779). Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.2d 584, 502 N.Y.S.2d 493, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tillinger-v-tillinger-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack