Machado v. Machado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Machado v. Machado

295 A.D.2d 324, 743 N.Y.S.2d 885, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5810

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

DecidedJune 3, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 295 A.D.2d 324 (Machado v. Machado) 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

Machado v. Machado, 295 A.D.2d 324, 743 N.Y.S.2d 885, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5810 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment dated June 12, 1986, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated January 3, 2001, as denied her cross motion for maintenance and pension arrears, and the imposition of a sanction and for an attorney’s fee.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiffs pension arrears should be offset by the $45,810 in maintenance he paid to the defendant after she remarried without his knowledge (see Grossman v Merke-Grossman, 248 AD2d 670; Stein v Stein, 261 AD2d 606). Accordingly, since the amount overpaid by the plaintiff in maintenance exceeds the amount of his pension arrears, the defendant was not entitled to payment of those arrears.

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Florio, J.P., O’Brien, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment dated June 12, 1986, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated January 3, 2001, as denied her cross motion for maintenance and pension arrears, and the imposition of a sanction and for an attorney’s fee.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiffs pension arrears should be offset by the $45,810 in maintenance he paid to the defendant after she remarried without his knowledge (see Grossman v Merke-Grossman, 248 AD2d 670; Stein v Stein, 261 AD2d 606). Accordingly, since the amount overpaid by the plaintiff in maintenance exceeds the amount of his pension arrears, the defendant was not entitled to payment of those arrears.

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Florio, J.P., O’Brien, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 324, 743 N.Y.S.2d 885, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/machado-v-machado-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack