Conneely v. Conneely

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Conneely v. Conneely

204 A.D.2d 128, 611 N.Y.S.2d 186

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

DecidedMay 10, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 204 A.D.2d 128 (Conneely v. Conneely) 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

Conneely v. Conneely, 204 A.D.2d 128, 611 N.Y.S.2d 186 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered on or about January 13, 1993, which, insofar as appealed from, awarded defendant wife a "rental allowance” of $400 a month after "finding] no basis in law or fact” for an "award of interim maintenance”, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Despite the court’s finding that the wife, a 38-year old vice-president of a major bank, "earns $73,848 per year plus perquisites”, whereas the husband, a 46-year old building superintendent, "earns approximately $27,804 per year plus perquisites which may increase his earnings to as much as $57,426”, we perceive no abuse of discretion in what was, in effect, an award of temporary maintenance to the wife of $400 a month, in view of the discord between the parties making the wife’s return to the marital apartment impractical and her consequent need to establish a new residence, and the fact that a rent free apartment is a perquisite of the husband’s job. We note once again, that these issues are best resolved by a speedy trial. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered on or about January 13, 1993, which, insofar as appealed from, awarded defendant wife a "rental allowance” of $400 a month after "finding] no basis in law or fact” for an "award of interim maintenance”, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Despite the court’s finding that the wife, a 38-year old vice-president of a major bank, "earns $73,848 per year plus perquisites”, whereas the husband, a 46-year old building superintendent, "earns approximately $27,804 per year plus perquisites which may increase his earnings to as much as $57,426”, we perceive no abuse of discretion in what was, in effect, an award of temporary maintenance to the wife of $400 a month, in view of the discord between the parties making the wife’s return to the marital apartment impractical and her consequent need to establish a new residence, and the fact that a rent free apartment is a perquisite of the husband’s job. We note once again, that these issues are best resolved by a speedy trial. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 128, 611 N.Y.S.2d 186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conneely-v-conneely-nyappdiv-1994.