Hearst v. Hearst

3 A.D.2d 706, 159 N.Y.S.2d 753, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6362
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 26, 1957·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Judgment, so far as appealed from, unanimously affirmed, with costs and disbursements to the respondent. While the fixation of temporary alimony is never determinative of the fact or quantum of the obligation to support as it may be resolved after plenary trial, -there is on this record no showing of prejudicial error. A wife is not entitled to share in a husband’s income as such, but is entitled to support on the basis of the established standard of living, if otherwise reasonable, within the income of the husband. There are also many other factors to be considered (see e.g., Phillips v. Phillips, 1 A D 2d 393). Plaintiff shows on this record, and in her argument, only that the husband has an income many times larger than the permanent alimony allotted to her. That is not enough. Concur- — Peck, P. J., Breitel, Valente and Bastow, JJ.

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

Hearst v. Hearst, 3 A.D.2d 706, 159 N.Y.S.2d 753, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6362 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

3 A.D.2d 706 (Hearst v. Hearst) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Radak v. Radak
56 A.D.2d 770 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
Hughes v. Hughes
54 A.D.2d 983 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Keyes v. Keyes
54 A.D.2d 557 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Kay v. Kay
339 N.E.2d 143 (New York Court of Appeals, 1975)
Hirsch v. Hirsch
333 N.E.2d 371 (New York Court of Appeals, 1975)