Kunerth v. Kunerth, 58 A.D.2d 1010 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977). · Go Syfert
Search
Kunerth v. Kunerth, 58 A.D.2d 1010 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lopez v. Curry
2d Cir. · 1978 · confidence medium
Although the Court of Appeals concluded that the jury charge “conveyed the requisite permissiveness with respect to use of a presumption and, therefore, was acceptable,” 38 N.Y.2d at 171 , 397 N.Y.S.2d at 39, 341 N.E.2d at 553 , a careful reading of the trial judge’s charge leads us to conclude otherwise.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lopez v. Curry
2d Cir. · 1978 · confidence medium
Although the Court of Appeals concluded that the jury charge "conveyed the requisite permissiveness with respect to use of a presumption and, therefore, was acceptable," 38 N.Y.2d at 171 , 397 N.Y.S.2d at 39, 341 N.E.2d at 553 , a careful reading of the trial judge's charge leads us to conclude otherwise. 17 Justice Garbarino charged that "the Penal Law says in effect that from this evidence (that both the cocaine and the defendants were present in the automobile) each of the defendants possessed the cocaine, knowingly possessed the cocaine." If the foundation was laid, he added, the state was…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Donna L. Kunerth
v.
Alan M. Kunerth
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 12, 1977.
58 A.D.2d 1010
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: On this appeal from an order awarding temporary alimony, and containing other provisions, plaintiff requests that we increase the award of $150 per week for her and her 18-year-old son and that we reverse the directive that she return to defendant a 1974 Mercedes-Benz automobile upon defendant delivering to her "a certain 1975 Fiat automobile”. The Mercedes-Benz is registered in the name of one of defendant’s operating corporations. As we have so often written, parties to a matrimonial action should not waste their assets and the court’s time seeking review of an order for temporary alimony. The best relief is a speedy trial, and nothing in this case justifies departure from this rule. Indeed, this appeal has unnecessarily delayed for nearly a year the trial disposition of this case (see Vesper v Vesper, 46 AD2d 729; Schoellkopf v Schoellkopf, 41 AD2d 599; Gelow v Gelow, 41 AD2d 556; Dobbin v Dobbin, 39 AD2d 836; Frost v Frost, 38 AD2d 786; De Gasper v De Gasper, 31 AD2d 886). (Appeal from order of Erie Supreme Court—temporary alimony.) Present—Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Hancock, Denman and Witmer, JJ.