Hondros v. Hondros

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hondros v. Hondros

259 A.D.2d 592, 684 N.Y.S.2d 917, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2454

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 592 (Hondros v. Hondros) 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

Hondros v. Hondros, 259 A.D.2d 592, 684 N.Y.S.2d 917, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2454 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Ponterio, J.), dated August 11, 1997, as directed him to pay pendente lite child support, carrying charges, unreimbursed medical expenses, private school tuition and college expenses, and to provide the defendant wife with an automobile.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the husband’s contentions, the trial court did not award a double shelter allowance (see, Krantz v Krantz, 175 AD2d 863, 864), and did not award tuition retroactive to the date of application (see, Thomas v Thomas, 161 AD2d 1151).

The husband’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Ponterio, J.), dated August 11, 1997, as directed him to pay pendente lite child support, carrying charges, unreimbursed medical expenses, private school tuition and college expenses, and to provide the defendant wife with an automobile.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the husband’s contentions, the trial court did not award a double shelter allowance (see, Krantz v Krantz, 175 AD2d 863, 864), and did not award tuition retroactive to the date of application (see, Thomas v Thomas, 161 AD2d 1151).

The husband’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 592, 684 N.Y.S.2d 917, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hondros-v-hondros-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack