Dulber v. Dulber
| Decision Date | 01 June 1971 |
| Citation | 37 A.D.2d 566,322 N.Y.S.2d 862 |
| Parties | John DULBER, Respondent, v. Sylvia DULBER, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Marcus, Schenkman & Neiman, New York City, for respondent; Julius Neiman, New York City, of counsel.
Abraham Werfel, Jamaica, for appellant.
Before SHAPIRO, Acting P.J., and GULOTTA, CHRIST, BRENNAN and BENJAMIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action for divorce, defendant-wife appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered July 2, 1970, 63 Misc.2d 259, 311 N.Y.S.2d 604, as denied her application for alimony and awarded her a counsel fee of only $500. Her notice of appeal states that she seeks to bring up for review so much of an order of the same court, dated December 16, 1969, as denied her motion to examine plaintiff before trial.
Appeal from order dismissed, without costs. The order is not properly brought up for review upon appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5501, subd. (a), par. 1; Matter of Seltzer v. Wendell, 11 A.D.2d 805, 205 N.Y.S.2d 218). It would have have reviewable only upon a separate, timely appeal.
Judgment modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, by striking therefrom the second decretal paragraph, which denied alimony, and substituting in its place a provision awarding appellant alimony of $42.50 per week, commencing as of July 3, 1970. As so modified, judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs.
In our opinion the trial court's denial of alimony to defendant was an improvident exercise of discretion under the circumstances of this case.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King v. Ruhle (In re Estate of Ruhle)
...965 N.Y.S.2d 77, 987 N.E.2d 638 [2013] ; Hirschfield v. Hirschfield, 54 A.D.2d 656, 656, 388 N.Y.S.2d 577, 578 [1976]; Dulber v. Dulber, 37 A.D.2d 566, 566, 322 N.Y.S.2d 862 [1971], affd 29 N.Y.2d 408, 328 N.Y.S.2d 641, 278 N.E.2d 886 [1974] ). Even if reviewable, Surrogate's Court did not ......
-
Bielicki v. T.J. Bentey, Inc.
...and judgment (one paper) (see, CPLR 5501[a][1]; Matter of Kittelberger, 4 N.Y.2d 740, 171 N.Y.S.2d 861, 148 N.E.2d 910; Dulber v. Dulber, 37 A.D.2d 566, 322 N.Y.S.2d 862, affd. 29 N.Y.2d 408, 328 N.Y.S.2d 641, 278 N.E.2d 886). In any event, there is no merit to the contentions with respect ......
-
Bisca v. Bisca
...of certain documents, are not properly before us upon this appeal from the final judgment (see CPLR 5501, subd. par. 1; Dulber v. Dulber, 37 A.D.2d 566, 322 N.Y.S.2d 862, affd. 29 N.Y.2d 408, 328 N.Y.S.2d 641, 278 N.E.2d 886; see, generally, 7 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y.Civ.Prac., par. 5501......
-
Matter of Cameron v. Church
...motion to depose several County employees is not brought up for review on appeal from the final judgment (see, CPLR 5501[a][1]; Dulber v Dulber, 37 A.D.2d 566, affd 29 N.Y.2d 408), and we have not considered the arguments concerning that RITTER, J.P., S. MILLER, McGINITY and TOWNES, JJ., co......