Johnson v. Chapin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Johnson v. Chapin

299 A.D.2d 294, 749 N.Y.S.2d 723, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11541

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

DecidedNovember 26, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 299 A.D.2d 294 (Johnson v. Chapin) 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

Johnson v. Chapin, 299 A.D.2d 294, 749 N.Y.S.2d 723, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11541 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marjory Fields, J.), entered May 16, 2002, which, in this matrimonial action, granted, in part, plaintiff’s motion for pendente lite relief, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant has not demonstrated any basis for affording him [295]*295relief from the interim award. Indeed, the motion court, when confronted with defendant’s apparently self-created unemployment and questionable claim of limited future earnings, was warranted in imputing income to him on the basis of his past earnings and earning capacity (see Kent v Kent, 291 AD2d 258, 259).

We have considered defendant’s various arguments and find them all unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Rosenberger, Rubin and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marjory Fields, J.), entered May 16, 2002, which, in this matrimonial action, granted, in part, plaintiff’s motion for pendente lite relief, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant has not demonstrated any basis for affording him [295]*295relief from the interim award. Indeed, the motion court, when confronted with defendant’s apparently self-created unemployment and questionable claim of limited future earnings, was warranted in imputing income to him on the basis of his past earnings and earning capacity (see Kent v Kent, 291 AD2d 258, 259).

We have considered defendant’s various arguments and find them all unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Rosenberger, Rubin and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 A.D.2d 294, 749 N.Y.S.2d 723, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-chapin-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack