From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

O'Connor v. O'Connor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 12, 2003
305 A.D.2d 476 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-11463

Argued April 15, 2003.

May 12, 2003.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Falanga, J.), dated December 9, 2002, as granted those branches of the plaintiff wife's motion which were for temporary exclusive occupancy of the marital residence and temporary physical custody of the parties' children.

Martin K. Lang, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Jamie J. Berman of counsel), for appellant.

Newman Cahn, LLP, Carle Place, N.Y. (Neil R. Cahn of counsel), for respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding the plaintiff wife temporary exclusive occupancy of the marital home and physical custody of the parties' children (see Cervetti v. Yankowitz, 272 A.D.2d 567; Lazich v. Lazich, 189 A.D.2d 750). The best remedy for the inequities alleged by the defendant husband is a speedy trial (see Cervetti v. Yankowitz, supra; Dosamantes v. Dosamantes, 231 A.D.2d 671, 672; Shiff v. Shiff, 190 A.D.2d 786, 787; Lazich v. Lazich, supra at 752).

RITTER, J.P., ALTMAN, KRAUSMAN and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

O'Connor v. O'Connor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 12, 2003
305 A.D.2d 476 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

O'Connor v. O'Connor

Case Details

Full title:TOBIE O'CONNOR, respondent, v. MARK S. O'CONNOR, appellant

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

Date published: May 12, 2003

Citations

305 A.D.2d 476 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
758 N.Y.S.2d 839

Citing Cases

Stubbs v. Stubbs

In general, a speedy trial is the proper remedy for a perceived inequity in a pendente lite award, and…