Anfang v. Anfang

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Anfang v. Anfang

243 A.D.2d 340, 664 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10167

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 21, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 243 A.D.2d 340 (Anfang v. Anfang) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anfang v. Anfang, 243 A.D.2d 340, 664 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10167 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered on or about January 9, 1996, which, inter alia, granted defendant $300 per week temporary maintenance, $700 per week child support, and other pendente lite relief, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Having failed to file a net worth statement or to disclose information critical to the assessment of his net worth, plaintiff cannot be heard to complain that the court erred in drawing inferences favorable to defendant with respect to the disputed financial issues involved (Uniform Rules for Trial Cts [22 NYCRR] § 202.16 [k] [5]; Glass v Glass, 233 AD2d 274). Furthermore, the appropriate remedy for the claimed inequity in this temporary award of maintenance and other relief is a prompt trial where an accurate appraisal of the financial situation of the parties may be obtained (Sayer v Sayer, 130 AD2d 407).

We have considered plaintiff’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rubin, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered on or about January 9, 1996, which, inter alia, granted defendant $300 per week temporary maintenance, $700 per week child support, and other pendente lite relief, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Having failed to file a net worth statement or to disclose information critical to the assessment of his net worth, plaintiff cannot be heard to complain that the court erred in drawing inferences favorable to defendant with respect to the disputed financial issues involved (Uniform Rules for Trial Cts [22 NYCRR] § 202.16 [k] [5]; Glass v Glass, 233 AD2d 274). Furthermore, the appropriate remedy for the claimed inequity in this temporary award of maintenance and other relief is a prompt trial where an accurate appraisal of the financial situation of the parties may be obtained (Sayer v Sayer, 130 AD2d 407).

We have considered plaintiff’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rubin, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 340, 664 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anfang-v-anfang-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack