Lehman v. Lehman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lehman v. Lehman

104 A.D.2d 546, 479 N.Y.S.2d 736, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20001

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

DecidedSeptember 25, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 104 A.D.2d 546 (Lehman v. Lehman) 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

Lehman v. Lehman, 104 A.D.2d 546, 479 N.Y.S.2d 736, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20001 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Hortense Gabel, J.), entered on May 25,1984, which, inter alia, awarded plaintiff wife temporary maintenance of $3,500 per week, $1,000 per week child support and $1,000 per week until [547]*547all arrears have been satisfied, is unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and the exercise of discretion, to the extent of directing that the payments towards arrears be computed in the same proportion (3.5 to 1) as the total pendente lite award, and otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

This court’s modification is intended to clarify that portion of Special Term’s order covering arrears to conform with the pendente lite award. Considering the respective income, assets and needs of the parties, Special Term did not abuse its discretion in connection with its award of temporary maintenance and child support. Any alleged inequities in the court’s award should be resolved by means of an expeditious trial. (McKee v McKee, 96 AD2d 531; Beckwith v Beckwith, 95 AD2d 943; Rossman v Rossman, 91 AD2d 1036; Jorgensen v Jorgensen, 86 AD2d 861.) Concur — Sandler, J. P., Ross, Carro, Milonas and Kassal, JJ.

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

— Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Hortense Gabel, J.), entered on May 25,1984, which, inter alia, awarded plaintiff wife temporary maintenance of $3,500 per week, $1,000 per week child support and $1,000 per week until [547]*547all arrears have been satisfied, is unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and the exercise of discretion, to the extent of directing that the payments towards arrears be computed in the same proportion (3.5 to 1) as the total pendente lite award, and otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

This court’s modification is intended to clarify that portion of Special Term’s order covering arrears to conform with the pendente lite award. Considering the respective income, assets and needs of the parties, Special Term did not abuse its discretion in connection with its award of temporary maintenance and child support. Any alleged inequities in the court’s award should be resolved by means of an expeditious trial. (McKee v McKee, 96 AD2d 531; Beckwith v Beckwith, 95 AD2d 943; Rossman v Rossman, 91 AD2d 1036; Jorgensen v Jorgensen, 86 AD2d 861.) Concur — Sandler, J. P., Ross, Carro, Milonas and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 A.D.2d 546, 479 N.Y.S.2d 736, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lehman-v-lehman-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack