Lo Palo v. Lo Palo

Full title: LOUIS LO PALO, Appellant, v. SUSAN LO PALO, Respondent

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

Date published: Nov 12, 1985

114 A.D.2d 887 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

November 12, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.).

Order affirmed, with costs.

A review of the record indicates that Special Term did not abuse its discretion in its grant of pendente lite relief to defendant. Furthermore, Special Term did not abuse its discretion in referring the plaintiff's cross motion to the trial court. The ultimate disposition of the issues of maintenance, support, and the execution of a substitute second mortgage should be made after a trial (see, Ellenis v Ellenis, 76 A.D.2d 880; De Mato v De Mato, 101 A.D.2d 847). Mangano, J.P., Bracken, O'Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.