Knight v. Knight

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Knight v. Knight

231 A.D.2d 847, 648 N.Y.S.2d 415, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14214

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 231 A.D.2d 847 (Knight v. Knight) 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

Knight v. Knight, 231 A.D.2d 847, 648 N.Y.S.2d 415, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14214 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed with [848]*848costs. Memorandum: "Questions of maintenance are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6]; Majauskas v Majauskas, 61 NY2d 481, 494; Pacifico v Pacifico, 101 AD2d 709, 710)” (Torgersen v Torgersen, 188 AD2d 1023, 1024, lv denied 81 NY2d 709). We reject the contention of defendant that Supreme Court abused its discretion in determining that he is not entitled to maintenance. The record supports the court’s determination that defendant, despite his sporadic employment during the last several years of the marriage, has sufficient property and employment skills to provide for his reasonable needs (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Gilbert, J.—Maintenance.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed with [848]*848costs. Memorandum: "Questions of maintenance are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6]; Majauskas v Majauskas, 61 NY2d 481, 494; Pacifico v Pacifico, 101 AD2d 709, 710)” (Torgersen v Torgersen, 188 AD2d 1023, 1024, lv denied 81 NY2d 709). We reject the contention of defendant that Supreme Court abused its discretion in determining that he is not entitled to maintenance. The record supports the court’s determination that defendant, despite his sporadic employment during the last several years of the marriage, has sufficient property and employment skills to provide for his reasonable needs (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Gilbert, J.—Maintenance.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 847, 648 N.Y.S.2d 415, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knight-v-knight-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack