From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wolf v. Wolf

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 31, 1996
232 A.D.2d 330 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

October 31, 1996.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Irene Duffy, J.), entered March 29, 1996, which, insofar as appealed from, in an action for divorce, granted defendant mother's motion for child support, and, sua sponte, granted a trial preference, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Before: Murphy, P.J., Milonas, Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.


A hearing was not necessary on the issue of whether the parties' 20-year-old son is emancipated, and therefore not entitled to plaintiff father's pendente lite support, there being no dispute that the son is a full-time college student who returns to the mother's home during school breaks and depends upon her for payment of his tuition and other financial support. That the son may not be developing into the type of person the father can respect is hardly sufficient, at least for pendente lite purposes, to warrant a hearing into whether the son has abandoned his parents' home(s) against their will and for the purpose of avoiding parental control ( Matter of Roe v Doe, 29 NY2d 188, 193). The direction that the case be tried 10 days after service of a note of issue and certificate of readiness was a proper exercise of the court's discretion to grant a trial preference in the interests of justice (CPLR 3403 [a] [3]). "We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.


Summaries of

Wolf v. Wolf

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 31, 1996
232 A.D.2d 330 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Wolf v. Wolf

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD H. WOLF, Appellant, v. JOYCE WOLF, Respondent

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

Date published: Oct 31, 1996

Citations

232 A.D.2d 330 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
648 N.Y.S.2d 611

Citing Cases

Wassel v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiff's motion for a trial preference…

Shomron v. Fuks

Before: Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Sweeny and Malone, JJ. The court properly exercised its discretion…