Wuischpard v. Wuischpard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wuischpard v. Wuischpard

26 A.D.2d 577, 271 N.Y.S.2d 616, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3960

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

DecidedJune 20, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 577 (Wuischpard v. Wuischpard) 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

Wuischpard v. Wuischpard, 26 A.D.2d 577, 271 N.Y.S.2d 616, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3960 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action for judicial separation, the defendant husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered January 28, 1966, which granted plaintiff’s motion for temporary alimony and counsel fees and denied defendant’s cross motion for possession of certain chattels. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. In our opinion, under the circumstances disclosed by this record, the award of temporary alimony and counsel fees did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion. Our ruling, however, should have no effect upon the Trial Judge in his determination as to permanent alimony, if any. His determination should rest exclusively upon the proof adduced at the trial. It is our further opinion that the court’s denial of defendant’s cross motion for possession of the chattels set forth in the answer was proper. Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action for judicial separation, the defendant husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered January 28, 1966, which granted plaintiff’s motion for temporary alimony and counsel fees and denied defendant’s cross motion for possession of certain chattels. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. In our opinion, under the circumstances disclosed by this record, the award of temporary alimony and counsel fees did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion. Our ruling, however, should have no effect upon the Trial Judge in his determination as to permanent alimony, if any. His determination should rest exclusively upon the proof adduced at the trial. It is our further opinion that the court’s denial of defendant’s cross motion for possession of the chattels set forth in the answer was proper. Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 577, 271 N.Y.S.2d 616, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3960, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wuischpard-v-wuischpard-nyappdiv-1966.