Glass v. Glass

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Glass v. Glass

233 A.D.2d 274, 650 N.Y.S.2d 134, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12147

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

DecidedNovember 26, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 233 A.D.2d 274 (Glass v. Glass) 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

Glass v. Glass, 233 A.D.2d 274, 650 N.Y.S.2d 134, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12147 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered September 27, 1995 and Feb[275]*275ruary 13, 1996, which granted defendant’s motion for various pendente lite relief, and, upon plaintiff’s motion for reargument and renewal, denied renewal, granted reargument, and adhered to the prior detérmination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since plaintiff failed to provide the requested financial documentation, including his 1994 income tax return or an estimate thereof and a complete net worth statement, the IAS Court properly drew an adverse inference with respect to his financial condition (22 NYCRR 202.16 [k] [5]), and he cannot now complain that the award exceeds his ability to pay. Plaintiff’s self-imposed tax liabilities were properly given little weight (see, Matter of Knights v Knights, 71 NY2d 865). Plaintiff’s remedy for any perceived inequities in the award is a speedy trial (Sayer v Sayer, 130 AD2d 407). We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Ross, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered September 27, 1995 and Feb[275]*275ruary 13, 1996, which granted defendant’s motion for various pendente lite relief, and, upon plaintiff’s motion for reargument and renewal, denied renewal, granted reargument, and adhered to the prior detérmination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since plaintiff failed to provide the requested financial documentation, including his 1994 income tax return or an estimate thereof and a complete net worth statement, the IAS Court properly drew an adverse inference with respect to his financial condition (22 NYCRR 202.16 [k] [5]), and he cannot now complain that the award exceeds his ability to pay. Plaintiff’s self-imposed tax liabilities were properly given little weight (see, Matter of Knights v Knights, 71 NY2d 865). Plaintiff’s remedy for any perceived inequities in the award is a speedy trial (Sayer v Sayer, 130 AD2d 407). We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Ross, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 A.D.2d 274, 650 N.Y.S.2d 134, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glass-v-glass-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack