From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Singh v. Singh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 10, 1973
41 A.D.2d 914 (N.Y. App. Div. 1973)

Opinion

May 10, 1973


Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on December 26, 1972, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, to allow the defendant-appellant to withdraw up to $2,000 from the account at the Chase Manhattan Bank, and otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The wife having liquidated one of the joint accounts and kept the funds totalling some $2,000, in order to equalize the situation pending a determination on the merits, the husband should be permitted to withdraw a similar amount from his Chase Manhattan Bank account, which at one time was a joint account. In affirming a pendente lite alimony and counsel fee, we note again, as we have most recently in Gostin v. Gostin ( 41 A.D.2d 606) and Levene v. Levene ( 41 A.D.2d 530)

"that ordinarily appeals from the granting of temporary alimony are not favored, as it is clearly more expedient and less consuming of both judicial time and that of the attorneys if counsel would promptly proceed to trial in accordance with section 249 Dom. Rel. of the Domestic Relations Law, which has legislatively expressed the entitlement to preference in the trial of such matters where justice so requires."

Concur — Markewich, J.P., Kupferman, Lane and Capozzoli, JJ.


Summaries of

Singh v. Singh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 10, 1973
41 A.D.2d 914 (N.Y. App. Div. 1973)
Case details for

Singh v. Singh

Case Details

Full title:CLARA R. SINGH, Respondent, v. RABINDRA SINGH, Appellant

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

Date published: May 10, 1973

Citations

41 A.D.2d 914 (N.Y. App. Div. 1973)

Citing Cases

Sonitis v. Sonitis

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs. Ordinarily, appeals from orders granting pendente…

Sayer v. Sayer

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