Zerilli v. Zerilli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zerilli v. Zerilli

110 A.D.2d 634, 487 N.Y.S.2d 373, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48533

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 1, 1985·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

In light of defendant’s lack of income or significant assets, Special Term should have granted, to the extent indicated above, those branches of her omnibus motion which sought a direction that plaintiff provide life insurance coverage and all dental and drug expenses for defendant and the infant issue of the parties, afford defendant the exclusive use of an automobile (with plaintiff to pay the costs of operating and maintaining the same), and pay an award of pendente lite counsel fees to defendant. We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions [635]*635and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P.J., Mangano, Thompson and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In light of defendant’s lack of income or significant assets, Special Term should have granted, to the extent indicated above, those branches of her omnibus motion which sought a direction that plaintiff provide life insurance coverage and all dental and drug expenses for defendant and the infant issue of the parties, afford defendant the exclusive use of an automobile (with plaintiff to pay the costs of operating and maintaining the same), and pay an award of pendente lite counsel fees to defendant. We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions [635]*635and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P.J., Mangano, Thompson and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Zerilli v. Zerilli, 110 A.D.2d 634, 487 N.Y.S.2d 373, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48533 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

110 A.D.2d 634 (Zerilli v. Zerilli) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related