Boughton v. Boughton

239 A.D.2d 935, 659 N.Y.S.2d 607, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6322
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 30, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 935 (Boughton v. Boughton) 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
Boughton v. Boughton, 239 A.D.2d 935, 659 N.Y.S.2d 607, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6322 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: As a general rule, the amount and duration of maintenance are matters committed to the sound discretion of the trial court (see, Shew v Shew, 193 AD2d 1142, 1143; Wilner v Wilner, 192 AD2d 524, 525). Nevertheless, "[i]n determining questions of maintenance, the authority of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court” (Marino v Marino, 229 AD2d 971, 972, citing Baumgart v Baumgart, 199 AD2d 1049, 1049-1050). In fashioning a fair and equitable maintenance award, both this Court and the trial court "must consider the payee spouse’s reasonable needs and predivorce standard of living in the context of the other enumerated statutory factors * * * (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a] [1]-[11])” (Hartog v Hartog, 85 NY2d 36, 52).

Supreme Court did not comply with that statutory mandate when it calculated the amount of maintenance based solely upon the predivorce standard of living. The court erred in failing to consider the calculation by defendant of her reasonable needs (cf, Hoyt v Hoyt, 166 AD2d 800, 801), plaintiffs ability to provide for those needs (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]) or any of the other factors enumerated in the statute [936]*936(see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a] [1]-[11]). Based upon those factors, we conclude that the amount of maintenance awarded by the court is excessive, and we modify the judgment by decreasing the award to $80 per week. In light of the duration of the marriage and defendant’s age, present job skills and future earning capacity, we conclude that the award of lifetime maintenance is proper (see, Behrmann v Behrmann, 204 AD2d 1076; Wilner v Wilner, supra, at 526). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Livingston County, Alonzo, J.— Maintenance.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Callahan and Fallon, JJ.

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

Related

KNOPE, OLGA v. KNOPE, GERARD S.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013
Knope v. Knope
103 A.D.3d 1256 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
DALY PERRY, COLLEEN A. v. PERRY, JOSEPH J.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
Perry v. Perry
101 A.D.3d 1762 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
ROONEY, KIMBERLY B. v. ROONEY, JOHN E.
92 A.D.3d 1294 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
SALVATO, KAREN L. v. SALVATO, LARRY P.
89 A.D.3d 1509 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Smith v. Smith
79 A.D.3d 1643 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Northway v. Northway
70 A.D.3d 1347 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
McCarthy v. McCarthy
57 A.D.3d 1481 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Petosa v. Petosa
56 A.D.2d 1296 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Frost v. Frost
49 A.D.3d 1150 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Moody v. Sorokina
40 A.D.3d 14 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Bennett v. Bennett
13 A.D.3d 1080 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Kay v. Kay
302 A.D.2d 711 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Corasanti v. Corasanti
296 A.D.2d 831 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Fafinski v. Bialaszewski
289 A.D.2d 1066 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Wipperman v. Wipperman
277 A.D.2d 1040 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Burroughs v. Burroughs
269 A.D.2d 765 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Stricos v. Stricos
263 A.D.2d 659 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Francis v. Francis
262 A.D.2d 1065 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
239 A.D.2d 935, 659 N.Y.S.2d 607, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boughton-v-boughton-nyappdiv-1997.