Czekalski v. Czekalski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Czekalski v. Czekalski

163 A.D.2d 836, 559 N.Y.S.2d 842, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9506

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

DecidedJuly 13, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 163 A.D.2d 836 (Czekalski v. Czekalski) 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

Czekalski v. Czekalski, 163 A.D.2d 836, 559 N.Y.S.2d 842, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9506 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment insofar as appealed from unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Defendant wife appeals from a judgment of divorce insofar as it awarded her maintenance of $50 per week for two years. She argues on appeal that the amount and duration of the award are inadequate and that the court failed to set forth the factors it considered, as required by Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (b). The Judicial Hearing Officer was appointed to hear and determine the issues of maintenance, equitable distribution and counsel fees. We find that he adequately set forth the factors he considered in awarding maintenance, and we find no basis to disturb his award. Defendant failed to produce proof that she is entitled to more maintenance than she received. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolf, J.— divorce.) Present—Boomer, J. P., Green, Pine, Davis and Lowery, JJ.

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

Judgment insofar as appealed from unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Defendant wife appeals from a judgment of divorce insofar as it awarded her maintenance of $50 per week for two years. She argues on appeal that the amount and duration of the award are inadequate and that the court failed to set forth the factors it considered, as required by Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (b). The Judicial Hearing Officer was appointed to hear and determine the issues of maintenance, equitable distribution and counsel fees. We find that he adequately set forth the factors he considered in awarding maintenance, and we find no basis to disturb his award. Defendant failed to produce proof that she is entitled to more maintenance than she received. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolf, J.— divorce.) Present—Boomer, J. P., Green, Pine, Davis and Lowery, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 A.D.2d 836, 559 N.Y.S.2d 842, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/czekalski-v-czekalski-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack