Court Opinion

ID: 5830817
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 22:21:18.565527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:43:27.110813
License: Public Domain

*690The 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.