Willig v. Moses

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Willig v. Moses

190 A.D.2d 570

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

DecidedFebruary 9, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 190 A.D.2d 570 (Willig v. Moses) 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

Willig v. Moses, 190 A.D.2d 570 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered November 2, 1992, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff temporary exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence, and denied defendant temporary maintenance and interim counsel fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While ordinarily a hearing is required before interim exclusive occupancy is directed (Nunes v Durante, 181 AD2d 520), the immediate hearing directed by the court in connection with this and the other issues raised on the motions is an appropriate remedy under the circumstances presented herein (cfi, supra). Nor was it an abuse of discretion for the court to deny defendant temporary maintenance and interim counsel fees.

Although defendant is temporarily unemployed and receiving unemployment insurance, he is paying none of the costs of maintaining the family or the marital residence, and is in arrears in child support. Concur — Carro, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered November 2, 1992, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff temporary exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence, and denied defendant temporary maintenance and interim counsel fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While ordinarily a hearing is required before interim exclusive occupancy is directed (Nunes v Durante, 181 AD2d 520), the immediate hearing directed by the court in connection with this and the other issues raised on the motions is an appropriate remedy under the circumstances presented herein (cfi, supra). Nor was it an abuse of discretion for the court to deny defendant temporary maintenance and interim counsel fees.

Although defendant is temporarily unemployed and receiving unemployment insurance, he is paying none of the costs of maintaining the family or the marital residence, and is in arrears in child support. Concur — Carro, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 A.D.2d 570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willig-v-moses-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack