Calleja v. Calleja

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Calleja v. Calleja

108 A.D.2d 837, 485 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56634

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 19, 1985·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

In an action for a divorce, the defendant husband appeals (1) as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kelly, J.), entered April 20, 1984, as granted the plaintiff wife the sum of $225 per week for maintenance and the sum of $175 per week for child support; and (2) from an order of the same court (Roncallo, J.), dated May 23, 1984, which granted the plaintiff wife counsel fees in the principal sum of $7,200.

Judgment affirmed, insofar as appealed from, and order affirmed, with one bill of costs.

We find that Special Term’s awards of maintenance, child support, and counsel fees constituted a proper exercise of its discretion (see, Silver v Silver, 63 AD2d 1017; Smith v Smith, 61 AD2d 1133). We also find that contrary to the defendant husband’s claim, Special Term sufficiently set forth the factors it considered in rendering its maintenance and child support awards (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [b]; [7] [b]; cf. Hornbeck v Hornbeck, 99 AD2d 851; Nielsen v Nielsen, 91 AD2d 1016). Titone, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a divorce, the defendant husband appeals (1) as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kelly, J.), entered April 20, 1984, as granted the plaintiff wife the sum of $225 per week for maintenance and the sum of $175 per week for child support; and (2) from an order of the same court (Roncallo, J.), dated May 23, 1984, which granted the plaintiff wife counsel fees in the principal sum of $7,200.

Judgment affirmed, insofar as appealed from, and order affirmed, with one bill of costs.

We find that Special Term’s awards of maintenance, child support, and counsel fees constituted a proper exercise of its discretion (see, Silver v Silver, 63 AD2d 1017; Smith v Smith, 61 AD2d 1133). We also find that contrary to the defendant husband’s claim, Special Term sufficiently set forth the factors it considered in rendering its maintenance and child support awards (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [b]; [7] [b]; cf. Hornbeck v Hornbeck, 99 AD2d 851; Nielsen v Nielsen, 91 AD2d 1016). Titone, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Calleja v. Calleja, 108 A.D.2d 837, 485 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56634 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

108 A.D.2d 837 (Calleja v. Calleja) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related