Lynch v. Hennessy-Lynch — 89 A.D.3d 689

Majority

p. 689

Joseph Lynch, Respondent, v Ann Marie Hennessy-Lynch, Appellant.

[931 NYS2d 886]

p. 690

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff husband’s motion which was for pendente lite exclusive use and occupancy of the marital home (see Pascazi v Pascazi, 52 AD3d 664 [2008]; Shanon v Patterson, 294 AD2d 485 , 486 [2002]; Preston v Preston, 147 AD2d 464 , 465 [1989]; Kristiansen v Kristiansen, 144 AD2d 441 , 442 [1988]). Angiolillo, J.E, Florio, Leventhal and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cases cited

Pascazi v. Pascazi 52 AD3d 664 N.Y. App. Div. 2008-06-17 p. 690
Shanon v. Patterson 294 AD2d 485 N.Y. App. Div. 2002-05-20 at 486 p. 690
Preston v. Preston 147 AD2d 464 N.Y. App. Div. 1989-02-06 at 465 p. 690
Kristiansen v. Kristiansen 144 AD2d 441 N.Y. App. Div. 1988-11-14 at 442 p. 690