From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Skannel v. Skannel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 7, 1949
275 App. Div. 713 (N.Y. App. Div. 1949)

Opinion

March 7, 1949.


In this action for separation, defendant husband counterclaimed for separation. By order, dated November 8, 1948, made prior to the interposition of defendant's answer containing the counterclaims, plaintiff's motion for alimony pendente lite and counsel fees was denied. After the answer was served, plaintiff moved for reargument. Special Term considered the entire application de novo and, by order dated December 23, 1948, denied plaintiff's motion for alimony pendente lite, but granted plaintiff a counsel fee of $400 to defend herself against the counterclaims contained in the answer. Order, dated December 23, 1948, modified by striking from the first ordering paragraph the words "in all respects denied" and substituting in place thereof a provision granting plaintiff $30 a week alimony pendente lite from and after November 8, 1948. As so modified, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellant, the arrears of alimony to be paid within ten days from the entry of the order hereon. Appeal from order dated November 8, 1948, dismissed, without costs. In our opinion, the denial of alimony pendente lite was an improvident exercise of discretion. Carswell, Acting P.J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and MacCrate, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Skannel v. Skannel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 7, 1949
275 App. Div. 713 (N.Y. App. Div. 1949)
Case details for

Skannel v. Skannel

Case Details

Full title:ANNE MACL. SKANNEL, Appellant, v. JAMES A. SKANNEL, Respondent

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

Date published: Mar 7, 1949

Citations

275 App. Div. 713 (N.Y. App. Div. 1949)

Citing Cases

Osofsky v. Osofsky

Defendant appeals from an order granting $35 a week temporary alimony and referring an application for…

Kind v. Kind

In any event, appellant would have been entitled to the relief sought had she moved anew after the service of…