Opinion
November 13, 1967
Order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 10, 1967, modified, on the law and the facts, by (1) striking out its third and fourth decretal paragraphs, (2) amending its second decretal paragraph so as to provide that the payments directed therein to be made by defendant be only for the support of the infant of the parties and that the payments be $30 per week and (3) adding a decretal paragraph providing that plaintiff's motion insofar as it is for temporary alimony and a counsel fee is referred to the trial court for determination upon the proof adduced at the trial, which determination may make appropriate allowance nunc pro tunc as of the return day of the original motion. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. Applications for temporary alimony should not be made or encouraged unless there is genuine necessity ( Haas v. Haas, 271 App. Div. 107; see Hunter v. Hunter, 10 A.D.2d 291, 297). In the case at bar, plaintiff completely failed to disclose her assets, which defendant specifically described to be a fund in excess of $27,000 (see Ross v. Ross, 24 A.D.2d 125, 127). Hence, plaintiff did not show that she was unable to support herself by use of her own moneys during the pendency of the action ( Kaplan v. Kaplan, 25 A.D.2d 563). Beldock, P.J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.