Weiner v. Weiner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weiner v. Weiner

23 A.D.2d 655, 257 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4567

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

DecidedMarch 30, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 655 (Weiner v. Weiner) 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

Weiner v. Weiner, 23 A.D.2d 655, 257 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4567 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on August 31, 1964, granting temporary alimony modified, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion and alimony reduced from $75 a week to $35 a week, and otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The defendant husband’s earnings as a lithographer do tiot warrant the alimony ordered. Nor was there any proof that such a sum would be required to maintain the wife at the standard that prevailed during the comparatively short period of their married life. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.; McNally, J., dissents in the following memorandum: I dissent and vote to affirm. Defendant admittedly abandoned the plaintiff under circumstances allegedly justifying his action. Considering the respective financial status of the parties, the temporary alimony award was within proper bounds.

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

Order, entered on August 31, 1964, granting temporary alimony modified, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion and alimony reduced from $75 a week to $35 a week, and otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The defendant husband’s earnings as a lithographer do tiot warrant the alimony ordered. Nor was there any proof that such a sum would be required to maintain the wife at the standard that prevailed during the comparatively short period of their married life. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.; McNally, J., dissents in the following memorandum: I dissent and vote to affirm. Defendant admittedly abandoned the plaintiff under circumstances allegedly justifying his action. Considering the respective financial status of the parties, the temporary alimony award was within proper bounds.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 655, 257 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weiner-v-weiner-nyappdiv-1965.