From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Seligmann v. Seligmann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 4, 1938
255 App. Div. 277 (N.Y. App. Div. 1938)

Opinion

November 4, 1938.

Appeal from Supreme Court of New York County.

Howard F.R. Mulligan of counsel [ Herman N. Schwartz with him on the brief and Edward A. Robertson, attorneys], for the appellant.

Emanuel B. Cohen, for the respondent.

Present — MARTIN, P.J., O'MALLEY, TOWNLEY, DORE and CALLAHAN, JJ.

Order unanimously reversed and motion denied.


The complaint is insufficient in that it does not specify the nature and circumstances of defendant's misconduct, or set forth the time and place of the acts complained of. (Rules Civ. Prac. rule 280.) Furthermore, the affidavits fail to show the probability of plaintiff's success at the trial, or the necessity at present of an allowance for support pendente lite.

The order should be reversed and the motion for alimony and counsel fee denied.


Summaries of

Seligmann v. Seligmann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 4, 1938
255 App. Div. 277 (N.Y. App. Div. 1938)
Case details for

Seligmann v. Seligmann

Case Details

Full title:MARJORIE F. SELIGMANN, Respondent, v. ARTHUR R. SELIGMANN, Appellant

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

Date published: Nov 4, 1938

Citations

255 App. Div. 277 (N.Y. App. Div. 1938)

Citing Cases

Kurcz v. Kurcz

Order, entered on April 11, 1961, denying plaintiff's motion to dismiss a counterclaim pursuant to rule 280…