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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 12, 1996·Published

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.

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

229 A.D.2d 1028 (Leudesdorff v. Leudesdorff) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related