Leudesdorff v. Leudesdorff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Leudesdorff v. Leudesdorff

229 A.D.2d 1028, 646 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9150

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 229 A.D.2d 1028 (Leudesdorff v. Leudesdorff) 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

Leudesdorff v. Leudesdorff, 229 A.D.2d 1028, 646 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9150 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly ordered that the award of temporary maintenance be retroactive to February 16, 1994, the date of the motion for temporary maintenance (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]; Banks v Banks, 148 AD2d 407). Contrary to plaintiffs contention, defendant submitted a statement of net worth with her motion for temporary maintenance and the court therefore did not err in entertaining the motion.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Nassau County, Burke, J.—Maintenance.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly ordered that the award of temporary maintenance be retroactive to February 16, 1994, the date of the motion for temporary maintenance (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]; Banks v Banks, 148 AD2d 407). Contrary to plaintiffs contention, defendant submitted a statement of net worth with her motion for temporary maintenance and the court therefore did not err in entertaining the motion.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Nassau County, Burke, J.—Maintenance.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 A.D.2d 1028, 646 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leudesdorff-v-leudesdorff-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack