Calvaruso v. Calvaruso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Calvaruso v. Calvaruso

276 A.D.2d 578, 714 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10394

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 16, 2000·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McNulty, J.), entered May 28, 1999, which, inter alia, awarded her maintenance of only $2,000 per week for only 10 years, and the plaintiff cross-appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of the same judgment which, inter alia, awarded the defendant maintenance of $2,000 per week for 10 years.

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

The trial court properly awarded the defendant 30% of the plaintiff’s partnership interest in his law firm (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [d] [6]).

Moreover, the trial court properly considered all relevant factors before awarding maintenance to the defendant, and the amount and the duration of the award represent a provident exercise of discretion (see, O’Shea v O’Shea, 237 AD2d 499; Sperling v Sperling, 165 AD2d 338).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., S. Miller, Friedmann and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McNulty, J.), entered May 28, 1999, which, inter alia, awarded her maintenance of only $2,000 per week for only 10 years, and the plaintiff cross-appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of the same judgment which, inter alia, awarded the defendant maintenance of $2,000 per week for 10 years.

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

The trial court properly awarded the defendant 30% of the plaintiff’s partnership interest in his law firm (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [d] [6]).

Moreover, the trial court properly considered all relevant factors before awarding maintenance to the defendant, and the amount and the duration of the award represent a provident exercise of discretion (see, O’Shea v O’Shea, 237 AD2d 499; Sperling v Sperling, 165 AD2d 338).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., S. Miller, Friedmann and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Calvaruso v. Calvaruso, 276 A.D.2d 578, 714 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10394 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

276 A.D.2d 578 (Calvaruso v. Calvaruso) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related