Haber v. Haber
| Decision Date | 02 April 1964 |
| Citation | 20 A.D.2d 858,248 N.Y.S.2d 83 |
| Parties | Naomi HABER, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Fred HABER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
J. D. Stillman, New York City, for plaintiff-respondent.
S. D. Bogaty, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Before BREITEL, J. P., and VALENTE, EAGER, STEUER and BASTOW, JJ.
Order, entered on December 30, 1963, awarding temporary alimony unanimously affirmed, without costs. Some of the Court believe that the alimony awarded appears to be in excess of what the affidavits would justify. This is confirmed by the fact that respondent has shown no disposition to proceed to trial. The entire Court agrees, however, that, as a defendant paying temporary alimony is in a position to obtain an expeditious trial and, had the appellant directed his activity toward that end rather than appealing the award, the matter could have been entirely disposed of. We appreciate that in many instances lawyers believe that the trial court is to some degree influenced in fixing permanent alimony by a prior award of temporary alimony and that this may have prompted this appeal. There ought to be no basis for such relief.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cherry v. Koch
...hearing is conducted (People v. Mason, 97 Misc.2d 706, 712, 411 N.Y.S.2d 970); or where a temporary order was issued (Haber v. Haber, 20 A.D.2d 858, 248 N.Y.S.2d 83). The "Law of the Case" doctrine applies to "various stages of the same action or proceeding" (New York Practice, David D. Sie......
-
Orenstein v. Orenstein
...N.Y.S.2d 987; Becker v. Becker, 17 A.D.2d 806, 232 N.Y.S.2d 912; Dominick v. Dominick, 23 A.D.2d 645, 257 N.Y.S.2d 309; Haber v. Haber, 20 A.D.2d 858, 248 N.Y.S.2d 83. The Second Department holds to the same effect, e.g. Shaifer v. Shaifer, 23 A.D.2d 589, 256 N.Y.S.2d 646; Dubin v. Dubin, 1......
-
Dominick v. Dominick
...reached on an emergency basis in fixing or denying temporary alimony and related relief should not be influential (Haber v. Haber, 20 A.D.2d 858, 248 N.Y.S.2d 83; Goldberg v. Goldberg, 20 A.D.2d 806, 248 N.Y.S.2d 783). Settle order on ...
-
Aronson v. Aronson
...would not survive the permanent decree unless it was specifically and clearly so stated as to amount and otherwise. (Haber v. Haber, 20 A.D.2d 858, 248 N.Y.S.2d 83; Mittman v. Mittman, 263 App.Div. 384, 33 N.Y.S.2d There was little testimony taken as to the wife's financial condition. There......