Barclay-Nimey v. Nimey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barclay-Nimey v. Nimey

155 A.D.2d 933, 549 N.Y.S.2d 615, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14790

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 155 A.D.2d 933 (Barclay-Nimey v. Nimey) 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

Barclay-Nimey v. Nimey, 155 A.D.2d 933, 549 N.Y.S.2d 615, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14790 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: In fashioning an award of maintenance, the trial court is directed to consider certain enumerated factors (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a] [1]-[11]) and in any decision made pursuant to the maintenance subdivision the court is mandated to "set forth the factors it considered and the reasons for its decision” (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [b]). Here, it is clear from the court’s decision, findings of fact and conclusions of law that the statutory directive was followed. On this record we find that the court did not abuse its discretion in setting the amount and duration of the maintenance award. We further find that the court properly determined that a motor home purchased during the marriage was not subject to equitable distribution (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [c], [d] [3]). (Appeals from judgment of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Tenney, J. — divorce.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: In fashioning an award of maintenance, the trial court is directed to consider certain enumerated factors (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a] [1]-[11]) and in any decision made pursuant to the maintenance subdivision the court is mandated to "set forth the factors it considered and the reasons for its decision” (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [b]). Here, it is clear from the court’s decision, findings of fact and conclusions of law that the statutory directive was followed. On this record we find that the court did not abuse its discretion in setting the amount and duration of the maintenance award. We further find that the court properly determined that a motor home purchased during the marriage was not subject to equitable distribution (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [c], [d] [3]). (Appeals from judgment of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Tenney, J. — divorce.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 A.D.2d 933, 549 N.Y.S.2d 615, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14790, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barclay-nimey-v-nimey-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack