Kunerth v. Kunerth
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Sterlace v. Sterlace (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1978)
- Alberts v. Alberts (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
- Cullen v. Cullen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Clancy v. Clancy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
- Keehan v. Keehan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
- Newman v. Newman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: On this appeal from an order awarding temporary alimony, and containing other provisions, plaintiff requests that we increase the award of $150 per week for her and her 18-year-old son and that we reverse the directive that she return to defendant a 1974 Mercedes-Benz automobile upon defendant delivering to her "a certain 1975 Fiat automobile”. The Mercedes-Benz is registered in the name of one of defendant’s operating corporations. As we have so often written, parties to a matrimonial action should not waste their assets and the court’s time seeking review of an order for temporary alimony. The best relief is a speedy trial, and nothing in this case justifies departure from this rule. Indeed, this appeal has unnecessarily delayed for nearly a year the trial disposition of this case (see Vesper v Vesper, 46 AD2d 729; Schoellkopf v Schoellkopf, 41 AD2d 599; Gelow v Gelow, 41 AD2d 556; Dobbin v Dobbin, 39 AD2d 836; Frost v Frost, 38 AD2d 786; De Gasper v De Gasper, 31 AD2d 886). (Appeal from order of Erie Supreme Court—temporary alimony.) Present—Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Hancock, Denman and Witmer, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.