Opinion · Nylaw New York

LOEB v. LOEB, 250 App. Div. 880 (1937)

250 App. Div. 880

Type: Opinion
Court: Nylaw New York
Jurisdiction: Nylaw
Date: 1937-04-30
Topic: general

LOEB v. LOEB, 250 App. Div. 880 (1937) ROSE B. LOEB, Appellant, v. JULIEN LOEB, Respondent.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed LOEB v. LOEB, 250 App. Div. 880 (1937). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

LOEB v. LOEB,250 App. Div. 880(1937)

ROSE B. LOEB, Appellant, v. JULIEN LOEB, Respondent.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.

April 30, 1937.

Order dated February 17, 1937, referring defendant's application to an official referee to hear and to determine what modification, if any, shall be made in the order dated August 5, 1936, directing defendant to pay temporary alimony of $100 per week and counsel fee of $1,000, in the order dated August 14, 1936, denying motion for resettlement, and in the order dated September 15, 1936, directing defendant to pay $250 asPage 881counsel fee upon his appeal from the aforementioned orders reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. If the defendant had followed the suggestion made by this court on the former appeal [249 App. Div. 629], the question of alimony would have been determined at the trial, which could have been had by now. Referring the question of counsel fee is in effect to have the official referee review the determination of this court. Lazansky, P.J., Hagarty, Davis, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.