Rowley v. Rowley
| Decision Date | 14 October 1958 |
| Parties | Alma M. ROWLEY, Respondent, v. Reed W. ROWLEY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Armen D. Anderson, Jr., Rockville Centre, for appellant.
Julius L. Bergenthal, Freeport, for respondent.
Before NOLAN, P. J., and WENZEL, UGHETTA, HALLINAN and KLEINFELD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action for a separation, the appeal is from an order awarding respondent, pendente lite, $50 a week alimony, $500 counsel fees and exclusive occupancy of real property owned by the parties as tenants by the entirety.
Order reversed, without costs, and motion denied, with leave to renew the application for a counsel fee on the trial.
The moving papers show no necessity for payment of alimony pendente lite or counsel fees to enable respondent to carry on the action, which is an essential legal basis for such an order (Lake v. Lake, 194 N.Y. 179, 87 N.E. 87). On the facts presented by the moving affidavits, we believe it was an improvident exercise of discretion to award exclusive possession of the property owned by the parties as tneants by the entirety to respondent prior to a trial and without a hearing.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glazer v. Glazer
...prosecute the action (Lake v. Lake, 194 N.Y. 179, 87 N.E. 87; Hirschberg v. Hirschberg, 7 A.D.2d 869, 182 N.Y.S.2d 49; Rowley v. Rowley, 6 A.D.2d 1049, 179 N.Y.S.2d 269; Rubino v. Rubino, 9 A.D.2d 959, 195 N.Y.S.2d 845). This disposition is without prejudice, however, to the right of the tr......
-
Hite v. Hite
...a hearing (see Siegal v. Siegal, 74 A.D.2d 867, 426 N.Y.S.2d 40; Scampoli v. Scampoli, 37 A.D.2d 614, 323 N.Y.S.2d 627; Rowley v. Rowley, 6 A.D.2d 1049, 179 N.Y.S.2d 269). There was no evidence that the wife had ever been issued an order of protection or that the police had ever been called......
-
Hirschberg v. Hirschberg
...any need for the present award of alimony pendente lite or counsel fees to enable respondent to carry on the action (Rowley v. Rowley, 6 A.D.2d 1049, 179 N.Y.S.2d 269). Should the facts as developed on the trial warrant, the trial court can then make an appropriate allowance nunc pro tunc a......
-
Ferguson v. Ferguson
...to award to the wife the exclusive possession of the property owned by the parties as tenants by the entirety (cf. Rowley v. Rowley, 6 A.D.2d 1049, 179 N.Y.S.2d 269). ...