Insinga v. Insinga

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Insinga v. Insinga

297 A.D.2d 585, 747 N.Y.2d 177, 747 N.Y.S.2d 177, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8778

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 297 A.D.2d 585 (Insinga v. Insinga) 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

Insinga v. Insinga, 297 A.D.2d 585, 747 N.Y.2d 177, 747 N.Y.S.2d 177, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8778 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

The court properly took into account the preseparation lifestyle of the parties, along with other relevant factors, in awarding maintenance (see Hartog v Hartog, 85 NY2d 36, 50-51), and we find no basis to disturb the court’s determination of the appropriate amount of such maintenance. Nor, in light of the length of the marriage, during which defendant worked solely in occasional low-paying part-time positions, and other relevant factors (see Ingram v Ingram, 208 AD2d 593, 594), will we disturb the court’s finding that maintenance should be permanent. Although plaintiff may have had a right to a medical exam of defendant in light of the evidence adduced, he never made such a request as indeed he could have.

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Buckley, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.

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

The court properly took into account the preseparation lifestyle of the parties, along with other relevant factors, in awarding maintenance (see Hartog v Hartog, 85 NY2d 36, 50-51), and we find no basis to disturb the court’s determination of the appropriate amount of such maintenance. Nor, in light of the length of the marriage, during which defendant worked solely in occasional low-paying part-time positions, and other relevant factors (see Ingram v Ingram, 208 AD2d 593, 594), will we disturb the court’s finding that maintenance should be permanent. Although plaintiff may have had a right to a medical exam of defendant in light of the evidence adduced, he never made such a request as indeed he could have.

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Buckley, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 585, 747 N.Y.2d 177, 747 N.Y.S.2d 177, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/insinga-v-insinga-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack