From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Goldman v. Goldman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 4, 1974
45 A.D.2d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 1974)

Opinion

June 4, 1974


In an action for separation, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered December 6, 1973, which granted plaintiff's motion, inter alia, to punish defendant for contempt of court for failure to comply with an order of temporary alimony. Order modified by striking therefrom all of the decretal paragraphs, except the seventh, which awarded plaintiff a counsel fee, and by adding thereto a provision directing that an immediate trial of the issues in the case take place in June, 1974, at which trial plaintiff may renew her application to punish for contempt. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. A prompt trial is the means to resolve asserted inequities in an award of temporary alimony ( Levene v. Levene, 41 A.D.2d 530). At the trial the parties may adduce evidence of their respective financial circumstances and, on the basis of such evidence, the amount of permanent alimony, if any, can be determined. Hopkins, Acting P.J., Martuscello, Cohalan, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Goldman v. Goldman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 4, 1974
45 A.D.2d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 1974)
Case details for

Goldman v. Goldman

Case Details

Full title:BARBARA GOLDMAN, Respondent, v. THEODORE GOLDMAN, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 4, 1974

Citations

45 A.D.2d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 1974)

Citing Cases

Sayer v. Sayer

While the dissent cites Pieri v. Pieri ( 91 A.D.2d 1016) for the proposition that "the speedy trial rule is…

Plumeau v. Plumeau

In this case, a speedy trial is desirable. A prompt trial is the means to resolve claimed inequities in an…