Catania v. Catania

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Catania v. Catania

111 A.D.2d 896, 490 N.Y.S.2d 604, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50168

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

DecidedJune 24, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 111 A.D.2d 896 (Catania v. Catania) 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

Catania v. Catania, 111 A.D.2d 896, 490 N.Y.S.2d 604, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50168 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action, defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Orgera, J.), dated January 19, 1984, as directed him to pay, pendente lite, (1) all carrying charges on the marital residence, including but not limited to, mortgage, principal and interest, real estate taxes, homeowner’s insurance, water, utilities and fuel; (2) the sum of $25 per week per child for child support; and (3) the sum of $300 in counsel fees.

Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to defendant husband’s contention, Special Term was not obligated to consider the nine specific factors enumerated in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a) in determining this application for pendente lite relief {see, Lewis, v Lewis, 103 AD2d 714; Belfiglio v Belfiglio, 99 AD2d 462; Berley v Berley, 97 AD2d 726; Liss v Liss, 87 AD2d 681). Special Term’s decision, in which it set forth the reasons for the determination reached, complied with the statutory directive (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [b]; [7] [d]). Under the circumstances, Special Term’s awards of pendente lite relief were not excessive. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action, defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Orgera, J.), dated January 19, 1984, as directed him to pay, pendente lite, (1) all carrying charges on the marital residence, including but not limited to, mortgage, principal and interest, real estate taxes, homeowner’s insurance, water, utilities and fuel; (2) the sum of $25 per week per child for child support; and (3) the sum of $300 in counsel fees.

Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to defendant husband’s contention, Special Term was not obligated to consider the nine specific factors enumerated in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a) in determining this application for pendente lite relief {see, Lewis, v Lewis, 103 AD2d 714; Belfiglio v Belfiglio, 99 AD2d 462; Berley v Berley, 97 AD2d 726; Liss v Liss, 87 AD2d 681). Special Term’s decision, in which it set forth the reasons for the determination reached, complied with the statutory directive (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [b]; [7] [d]). Under the circumstances, Special Term’s awards of pendente lite relief were not excessive. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.2d 896, 490 N.Y.S.2d 604, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/catania-v-catania-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack