Lanzillotta v. Lanzillotta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lanzillotta v. Lanzillotta

270 A.D.2d 111, 704 N.Y.S.2d 475, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2844

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

DecidedMarch 16, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 111 (Lanzillotta v. Lanzillotta) 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

Lanzillotta v. Lanzillotta, 270 A.D.2d 111, 704 N.Y.S.2d 475, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2844 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered January 12, 1999, which, inter alia, awarded plaintiff interim counsel fees of $20,000 and temporary maintenance consisting of, inter alia, a $3,000 a month payment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The award represents a measured accommodation between plaintiff’s reasonable needs and defendant’s financial ability to pay. The record shows that the parties enjoyed a lavish preseparation standard of living and that such was chiefly supported by business entities controlled by defendant. Defendant failed to provide documentation adequate to determine the amount of income generated by those businesses, and also failed to show that the award deprives him of the income and assets necessary to meet his own living expenses (see, Marfilius v Marfilius, 239 AD2d 299). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Mazzarelli, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered January 12, 1999, which, inter alia, awarded plaintiff interim counsel fees of $20,000 and temporary maintenance consisting of, inter alia, a $3,000 a month payment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The award represents a measured accommodation between plaintiff’s reasonable needs and defendant’s financial ability to pay. The record shows that the parties enjoyed a lavish preseparation standard of living and that such was chiefly supported by business entities controlled by defendant. Defendant failed to provide documentation adequate to determine the amount of income generated by those businesses, and also failed to show that the award deprives him of the income and assets necessary to meet his own living expenses (see, Marfilius v Marfilius, 239 AD2d 299). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Mazzarelli, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 111, 704 N.Y.S.2d 475, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lanzillotta-v-lanzillotta-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack