Hogue v. Hogue

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hogue v. Hogue

225 A.D.2d 731, 640 N.Y.2d 198, 640 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3124

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

DecidedMarch 25, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 731 (Hogue v. Hogue) 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

Hogue v. Hogue, 225 A.D.2d 731, 640 N.Y.2d 198, 640 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3124 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[732]*732The plaintiff wife and the defendant husband were married for approximately 20 years, during which time the defendant was employed as a medical doctor and the plaintiff worked only sporadically. At the time the divorce was granted, the plaintiff was approximately 46 years old, in good health, and well educated, but had little marketable work experience. Given these factors, we agree with the court’s finding that the plaintiff is capable of becoming self-supporting, but is not yet readily employable (see, Sperling v Sperling, 165 AD2d 338). We further find that the duration and amount of maintenance were proper (see, Sperling v Sperling, supra; Reingold v Reingold, 143 AD2d 126).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly reviewable on appeal (see, CPLR 5501 [a]). Miller, J. P., Joy, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

[732]*732The plaintiff wife and the defendant husband were married for approximately 20 years, during which time the defendant was employed as a medical doctor and the plaintiff worked only sporadically. At the time the divorce was granted, the plaintiff was approximately 46 years old, in good health, and well educated, but had little marketable work experience. Given these factors, we agree with the court’s finding that the plaintiff is capable of becoming self-supporting, but is not yet readily employable (see, Sperling v Sperling, 165 AD2d 338). We further find that the duration and amount of maintenance were proper (see, Sperling v Sperling, supra; Reingold v Reingold, 143 AD2d 126).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly reviewable on appeal (see, CPLR 5501 [a]). Miller, J. P., Joy, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 731, 640 N.Y.2d 198, 640 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hogue-v-hogue-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack