Kolleeny v. Kolleeny

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kolleeny v. Kolleeny

240 A.D.2d 327, 659 N.Y.S.2d 752, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6742

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

DecidedJune 24, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 240 A.D.2d 327 (Kolleeny v. Kolleeny) 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

Kolleeny v. Kolleeny, 240 A.D.2d 327, 659 N.Y.S.2d 752, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6742 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered on or about January 31, 1997, which, inter alia, awarded plaintiff wife various items of temporary maintenance and child support claimed by defendant husband to be excessive, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The record does not support the husband’s claim that the [328]*328motion court overlooked or misunderstood material facts resulting in an order that prevents him from meeting his own financial obligations. In fact, various overestimations by the husband and tax deductions available to him indicate that his net income is greater than that estimated by the court. The husband’s remedy for any perceived inequities in this temporary order is a prompt trial (see, Albanese v Albanese, 234 AD2d 489). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered on or about January 31, 1997, which, inter alia, awarded plaintiff wife various items of temporary maintenance and child support claimed by defendant husband to be excessive, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The record does not support the husband’s claim that the [328]*328motion court overlooked or misunderstood material facts resulting in an order that prevents him from meeting his own financial obligations. In fact, various overestimations by the husband and tax deductions available to him indicate that his net income is greater than that estimated by the court. The husband’s remedy for any perceived inequities in this temporary order is a prompt trial (see, Albanese v Albanese, 234 AD2d 489). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 327, 659 N.Y.S.2d 752, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kolleeny-v-kolleeny-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack