Mayer v. Mayer
Opinion of the Court
—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David B. Saxe, J.), entered January 6, 1994, which awarded plaintiff temporary maintenance and other expenses, and denied defendant’s motion for interim exclusive use and occupancy of the parties’ home in Westhampton Beach, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
This is a bitterly contested divorce, terminating a 35-year marriage. Defendant now resides in California, although there are marital residences in Manhattan, Westhampton Beach, and West Palm Beach, Florida. The IAS Court ordered defen
The interim award is consonant with the level of plaintiff’s lifestyle in the years prior to the breakup of the marriage (Tregellas v Tregellas, 169 AD2d 553). The appropriate remedy for defendant’s grievance with regard to that temporary award, especially in such a complex contest, is a prompt trial (Sayer v Sayer, 130 AD2d 407). Concur—Carro, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.