Hildenbiddle v. Hildenbiddle
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
*820On the record before us, given the respective circumstances of the parties, the pendente lite award of maintenance and child support was not excessive (see, Milward v Milward, 102 AD2d 816; Belfiglio v Belfiglio, 99 AD2d 462; Rossman v Rossman, 91 AD2d 1036; Jorgensen v Jorgensen, 86 AD2d 861; cf. Van Ess v Van Ess, 100 AD2d 848). Moreover, the best remedy for apparent inequities in such awards is a speedy trial (Erdheim v Erdheim, 101 AD2d 803; Marcus v Marcus, 91 AD2d 991).
Although the appointment of a temporary receiver is an extreme remedy, which should not be lightly granted, the record…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Van Ess v. Van EssAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
- Jorgensen v. JorgensenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
- Rossman v. RossmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
- Belfiglio v. BelfiglioAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
- Nelson v. NelsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Polito v. PolitoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- Adinolfi v. AdinolfiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- Berger v. BergerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
- Serdaroglu v. SerdarogluAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- Peters v. PetersAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.