Zerilli v. Zerilli
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
In light of defendant’s lack of income or significant assets, Special Term should have granted, to the extent indicated above, those branches of her omnibus motion which sought a direction that plaintiff provide life insurance coverage and all dental and drug expenses for defendant and the infant issue of the parties, afford defendant the exclusive use of an automobile (with plaintiff to pay the costs of operating and maintaining the same), and pay an award of pendente lite counsel fees to defendant. We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions *635and find them to be without merit.…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Mulcahy v. MulcahyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- Merrick v. MerrickNew York Supreme Court · 1992
- Wilbur v. WilburAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
- Ranieri v. RanieriAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- In re GaleNew York City Family Court · 1987
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.