Goz v. Goz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goz v. Goz

162 A.D.2d 149, 556 N.Y.S.2d 89, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6973

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

DecidedJune 7, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 162 A.D.2d 149 (Goz v. Goz) 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

Goz v. Goz, 162 A.D.2d 149, 556 N.Y.S.2d 89, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6973 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered on or about March 11, 1988, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for temporary maintenance, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[150]*150The proper remedy for a pendente lite award claimed to be unfair is an expeditious trial. (Ritter v Ritter, 135 AD2d 421, 424.) These parties have already had a trial and any alleged improprieties in the temporary award can be rectified in the permanent award.

Moreover, plaintiff husband has not demonstrated that this award should be modified. The court below obviously used as a guideline in determining the amount of temporary maintenance the stipulation of settlement which had been agreed to by the parties and which was appealed only by the wife. Husband contends herein that the court did not incorporate wife’s part of the stipulation settlement, i.e., surrender of her share of the New Jersey rental property, into the order for temporary maintenance. However, the court apparently took this into account when it modified the order to reduce the amount owed by husband by the amount collected by wife as rent on the New Jersey property.

Husband’s contentions that he was unable to afford this maintenance payment and that he could have repaired the New Jersey home to substantially increase its rental value are not supported by the record. Concur—Ross, J. P., Asch, Kassal, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered on or about March 11, 1988, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for temporary maintenance, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[150]*150The proper remedy for a pendente lite award claimed to be unfair is an expeditious trial. (Ritter v Ritter, 135 AD2d 421, 424.) These parties have already had a trial and any alleged improprieties in the temporary award can be rectified in the permanent award.

Moreover, plaintiff husband has not demonstrated that this award should be modified. The court below obviously used as a guideline in determining the amount of temporary maintenance the stipulation of settlement which had been agreed to by the parties and which was appealed only by the wife. Husband contends herein that the court did not incorporate wife’s part of the stipulation settlement, i.e., surrender of her share of the New Jersey rental property, into the order for temporary maintenance. However, the court apparently took this into account when it modified the order to reduce the amount owed by husband by the amount collected by wife as rent on the New Jersey property.

Husband’s contentions that he was unable to afford this maintenance payment and that he could have repaired the New Jersey home to substantially increase its rental value are not supported by the record. Concur—Ross, J. P., Asch, Kassal, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D.2d 149, 556 N.Y.S.2d 89, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6973, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goz-v-goz-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack