Landgraf v. Neuhaus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Landgraf v. Neuhaus

77 A.D.3d 590, 910 N.Y.S.2d 431

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

DecidedOctober 28, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 77 A.D.3d 590 (Landgraf v. Neuhaus) 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

Landgraf v. Neuhaus, 77 A.D.3d 590, 910 N.Y.S.2d 431 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Amended judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ira R. Globerman, J.), entered March 13, 2008, dissolving the parties’ marriage and, insofar as appealed from, awarding plaintiff lifetime maintenance in an amount that will increase, upon the emancipation of the parties’ minor child, by 50% of defendant’s then basic child support obligation, unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate the part of the judgment that directs an automatic increase in maintenance upon the emancipation of the child, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The award of lifetime maintenance to plaintiff was appropriate, considering her advanced age, the fact that she subordinated her career to caring for the parties’ child and supporting defendant’s efforts to start his own business, and her likely inability to become self-supporting (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]). However, the award of an automatic increase in maintenance “on the occurrence of [one] given fact”—i.e., upon the emancipation of the child—was error, because it “ignores the possibility of change in other factors affecting the computation” (Majauskas v Majauskas, 61 NY2d 481, 494 [1984]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Amended judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ira R. Globerman, J.), entered March 13, 2008, dissolving the parties’ marriage and, insofar as appealed from, awarding plaintiff lifetime maintenance in an amount that will increase, upon the emancipation of the parties’ minor child, by 50% of defendant’s then basic child support obligation, unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate the part of the judgment that directs an automatic increase in maintenance upon the emancipation of the child, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The award of lifetime maintenance to plaintiff was appropriate, considering her advanced age, the fact that she subordinated her career to caring for the parties’ child and supporting defendant’s efforts to start his own business, and her likely inability to become self-supporting (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]). However, the award of an automatic increase in maintenance “on the occurrence of [one] given fact”—i.e., upon the emancipation of the child—was error, because it “ignores the possibility of change in other factors affecting the computation” (Majauskas v Majauskas, 61 NY2d 481, 494 [1984]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A.D.3d 590, 910 N.Y.S.2d 431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/landgraf-v-neuhaus-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack