Asselta v. Asselta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Asselta v. Asselta

221 A.D.2d 394, 634 N.Y.S.2d 390, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11964

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 221 A.D.2d 394 (Asselta v. Asselta) 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

Asselta v. Asselta, 221 A.D.2d 394, 634 N.Y.S.2d 390, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11964 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an [395]*395action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Stolarik, J.), dated December 9, 1993, which, inter alia, (a) limited her maintenance award to only $125 per week for seven years, (b) limited her visitation with her children to Sundays, and (c) failed to award her attorney’s fees.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We discern no error in the court limiting the defendant’s maintenance award to $125 per week for seven years, inasmuch as the court properly weighed the necessary factors, especially that of the plaintiffs limited financial means resulting from the expenses attendant to his support of the parties’ three children (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6]; Majauskas v Majauskas, 61 NY2d 481; Loeb v Loeb, 186 AD2d 174). In addition, the court correctly concluded that the best interests of the children would be served by limiting the defendant’s visitation rights to Sundays (see, Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89; McDonald v McDonald, 216 AD2d 276; John v John, 214 AD2d 536). Finally, the court properly declined to award the defendant counsel fees in light of the plaintiffs "precarious financial condition” (Anderson v Anderson, 153 AD2d 823, 825; Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]). Thompson, J. P., Joy, Gold-stein and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In an [395]*395action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Stolarik, J.), dated December 9, 1993, which, inter alia, (a) limited her maintenance award to only $125 per week for seven years, (b) limited her visitation with her children to Sundays, and (c) failed to award her attorney’s fees.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We discern no error in the court limiting the defendant’s maintenance award to $125 per week for seven years, inasmuch as the court properly weighed the necessary factors, especially that of the plaintiffs limited financial means resulting from the expenses attendant to his support of the parties’ three children (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6]; Majauskas v Majauskas, 61 NY2d 481; Loeb v Loeb, 186 AD2d 174). In addition, the court correctly concluded that the best interests of the children would be served by limiting the defendant’s visitation rights to Sundays (see, Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89; McDonald v McDonald, 216 AD2d 276; John v John, 214 AD2d 536). Finally, the court properly declined to award the defendant counsel fees in light of the plaintiffs "precarious financial condition” (Anderson v Anderson, 153 AD2d 823, 825; Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]). Thompson, J. P., Joy, Gold-stein and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 394, 634 N.Y.S.2d 390, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11964, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/asselta-v-asselta-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack