Formato v. Formato

173 A.D.2d 274
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 14, 1991
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 173 A.D.2d 274 (Formato v. Formato) 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
Formato v. Formato, 173 A.D.2d 274 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered on or about November 28, 1990, which granted plaintiff’s motion for interim relief to the extent, inter alia, of awarding plaintiff $300 per week in temporary maintenance, and $300 per week in child support, and granting plaintiff exclusive occupancy of the marital cooperative apartment, pendente lite, is unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by directing a hearing by the IAS court, to be held within sixty days of the date of this order, as to whether plaintiff’s exclusive use and occupancy of the marital cooperative apartment should continue, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

As a general rule, pendente lite awards of exclusive use and occupancy of a marital residence should not be granted without a hearing, except upon persuasive evidence that such an award is necessary to protect the safety of persons and property. (Delli Venneri v Delli Venneri, 120 AD2d 238, 240 [1986].) As plaintiff’s uncorroborated affidavit is challenged by defendant’s submissions, a hearing is necessary to determine credibility and to adequately evaluate the presence or absence of additional factors which would support such an award.

In light of the vast disparity in the parties’ incomes and financial resources, and in view of their previous lifestyle, the [275]*275IAS court properly declined to compute the amount of child support pursuant to Domestic Relations Law §240 (1-b) (see, Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [f]; Rizzo v Rizzo, 163 AD2d 15 [1990]).

We find no evidence in the record to support defendant’s claims with respect to plaintiff’s purported additional income or enhanced capacity to earn a livelihood. Defendant’s remaining arguments are without merit. Concur—Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross and Smith, JJ.

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

Related

A.T. v. S.T.
2025 NY Slip Op 50701(U) (New York Supreme Court, Westchester County, 2025)
D.N. v. T.N.
2024 NY Slip Op 50543(U) (New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, 2024)
C.K. v. M.K.
31 Misc. 3d 937 (New York Supreme Court, 2011)
Klein v. Klein
246 A.D.2d 195 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Kilian v. Lowden
236 A.D.2d 236 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Drawer v. Pinkins
215 A.D.2d 169 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Nunes v. Durante
181 A.D.2d 520 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
173 A.D.2d 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/formato-v-formato-nyappdiv-1991.