Contrubis v. Contrubis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Contrubis v. Contrubis

46 A.D.2d 615, 359 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4009

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

DecidedOctober 10, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 46 A.D.2d 615 (Contrubis v. Contrubis) 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

Contrubis v. Contrubis, 46 A.D.2d 615, 359 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4009 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 27, 1973, awarding $70 a week alimony to plaintiff wife in a separation action, unanimously affirmed, with costs, however, awarded to the plaintiff-appellant. Appellant shall recover of respondent $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The award was in accordance with the preseparation standard. (Hunter v. Hunter, 10 A D 2d 291, mot. for lv. to rearg. den. 10 A D 2d 937.) However, plaintiff offered proof that the standard had been artificially depressed by the husband in an attempt to rebuild the parties’ financial resources, and further, that he was currently in a position to provide a substantially higher standard of living. This evidence was improperly excluded. (Domestic Relations Law, § 236; Hessen v. Hessen, 33 N Y 2d 406, 411; Kover v. Kover, 29 N Y 2d 408, 415; Phillips v. Phillips, 1 A D 2d 393, 398, affd. N Y 2d 742.) In view of the fact that an action for divorce has been instituted by the husband with a counterclaim for divorce by the wife and a demand for reconsideration de novo of the support Order, there is no need to provide for a new hearing with respect to support in the separation action. (See Hunter v. Hunter, supra, p. 937.) An immediate trial is directed in the divorce action where there can be consideration of all relevant evidence to determine support. Concur—Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Lupiano, Steuer and Lane, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 27, 1973, awarding $70 a week alimony to plaintiff wife in a separation action, unanimously affirmed, with costs, however, awarded to the plaintiff-appellant. Appellant shall recover of respondent $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The award was in accordance with the preseparation standard. (Hunter v. Hunter, 10 A D 2d 291, mot. for lv. to rearg. den. 10 A D 2d 937.) However, plaintiff offered proof that the standard had been artificially depressed by the husband in an attempt to rebuild the parties’ financial resources, and further, that he was currently in a position to provide a substantially higher standard of living. This evidence was improperly excluded. (Domestic Relations Law, § 236; Hessen v. Hessen, 33 N Y 2d 406, 411; Kover v. Kover, 29 N Y 2d 408, 415; Phillips v. Phillips, 1 A D 2d 393, 398, affd. N Y 2d 742.) In view of the fact that an action for divorce has been instituted by the husband with a counterclaim for divorce by the wife and a demand for reconsideration de novo of the support Order, there is no need to provide for a new hearing with respect to support in the separation action. (See Hunter v. Hunter, supra, p. 937.) An immediate trial is directed in the divorce action where there can be consideration of all relevant evidence to determine support. Concur—Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Lupiano, Steuer and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.2d 615, 359 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4009, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/contrubis-v-contrubis-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack