Leif v. Leif

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Leif v. Leif

55 A.D.2d 679, 390 N.Y.S.2d 429, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15440

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 55 A.D.2d 679 (Leif v. Leif) 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

Leif v. Leif, 55 A.D.2d 679, 390 N.Y.S.2d 429, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15440 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding for support pursuant to the Uniform Support of Dependents Law (Domestic Relations Law, art 3-A), the husband appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated March 1, 1976, which, after a hearing, awarded petitioner support and a counsel fee. Order affirmed, with costs. The award of $65 per week for petitioner and the parties’ child is not excessive in view of petitioner’s detailed expenses, appellant’s conceded take-home pay of $132 per week and appellant’s failure to present evidence to rebut the presumption that he is of sufficient means to support his wife and child (see Family Ct Act, § 437; cf. Matter of Panek v Panek, 45 AD2d 712). It is to be noted that petitioner had subpoenaed the financial records from appellant’s family business, in which appellant was employed, but the records were not produced. The evidence of alleged misconduct by petitioner, by reason of her five-day absence from the marital abode, is, at best, inconclusive and, in any event, appellant is responsible, as spouse and parent, to support recipients of public assistance (see Family Ct Act, § 415). Under the egregious circumstances herein, the Family Court’s refusal to further adjourn the proceeding was not an abuse of discretion. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Damiani and Titone, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding for support pursuant to the Uniform Support of Dependents Law (Domestic Relations Law, art 3-A), the husband appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated March 1, 1976, which, after a hearing, awarded petitioner support and a counsel fee. Order affirmed, with costs. The award of $65 per week for petitioner and the parties’ child is not excessive in view of petitioner’s detailed expenses, appellant’s conceded take-home pay of $132 per week and appellant’s failure to present evidence to rebut the presumption that he is of sufficient means to support his wife and child (see Family Ct Act, § 437; cf. Matter of Panek v Panek, 45 AD2d 712). It is to be noted that petitioner had subpoenaed the financial records from appellant’s family business, in which appellant was employed, but the records were not produced. The evidence of alleged misconduct by petitioner, by reason of her five-day absence from the marital abode, is, at best, inconclusive and, in any event, appellant is responsible, as spouse and parent, to support recipients of public assistance (see Family Ct Act, § 415). Under the egregious circumstances herein, the Family Court’s refusal to further adjourn the proceeding was not an abuse of discretion. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Damiani and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.2d 679, 390 N.Y.S.2d 429, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leif-v-leif-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack