Canonico v. Canonico

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Canonico v. Canonico

224 A.D.2d 338, 638 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1447

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 224 A.D.2d 338 (Canonico v. Canonico) 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

Canonico v. Canonico, 224 A.D.2d 338, 638 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1447 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Nassau County (John DiNoto, J.), entered on or about December 9,1994, which, inter alia, directed defendant to pay pendente lite monthly child support in the amount of $1,473.44, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court’s requirement that defendant pay the entire parties’ combined monthly child support calculated in accordance with the Child Support Standards Act (Domestic Relations Law § 240) was proper in light of the fact that plaintiff must pay all monthly residential costs for herself and the parties’ two children. The record does not support defendant’s claim that the support provisions are so prohibitive as to prevent him from meeting his own financial obligations. To the extent any inequities may exist under the pendente lite order, [339]*339the remedy is to proceed to a speedy trial (Hills v Hills, 182 AD2d 584). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Ross, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Nassau County (John DiNoto, J.), entered on or about December 9,1994, which, inter alia, directed defendant to pay pendente lite monthly child support in the amount of $1,473.44, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court’s requirement that defendant pay the entire parties’ combined monthly child support calculated in accordance with the Child Support Standards Act (Domestic Relations Law § 240) was proper in light of the fact that plaintiff must pay all monthly residential costs for herself and the parties’ two children. The record does not support defendant’s claim that the support provisions are so prohibitive as to prevent him from meeting his own financial obligations. To the extent any inequities may exist under the pendente lite order, [339]*339the remedy is to proceed to a speedy trial (Hills v Hills, 182 AD2d 584). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Ross, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 338, 638 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/canonico-v-canonico-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack