Lind v. Lind
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- Soldinger v. Soldinger (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Relyea v. Relyea (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Haymes v. Haymes (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- Emanuele v. Emanuele (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- Warshaw v. Warshaw (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Krishnan v. Krishnan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Wilbur v. Wilbur (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
- Murphy v. Murphy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- Melnick v. Melnick (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
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
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
That court properly resolved the factual disputes before it in the causes of action for separation and divorce (see Hessen v Hessen, 33 NY2d 406, 408) and it not appearing that that court abused its discretion or committed an error of law, its determinations of alimony, counsel fees and the use of the marital property are beyond our review (see Patron v Patron, 40 NY2d 582, 585).
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, Meyer and Simons concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.