Marshall v. Marshall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marshall v. Marshall

32 A.D.3d 1322, 821 N.Y.S.2d 510

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 32 A.D.3d 1322 (Marshall v. Marshall) 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

Marshall v. Marshall, 32 A.D.3d 1322, 821 N.Y.S.2d 510 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Brian F. DeJoseph, J.), entered May 26, 2005 in a divorce action. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, limited the award of maintenance and counsel fees to defendant.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment that, inter alia, granted plaintiff a divorce and awarded defendant maintenance in the amount of $1,000 per month “until the earliest of’ the death of either party, defendant’s remarriage or cohabitation within the meaning of Domestic Relations Law § 248, or a period of one year. Contrary to defendant’s contention, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the award of maintenance to, at most, a period of one year (see generally Schultz v Schultz, 309 AD2d 849 [2003]). Also contrary to defendant’s contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to award defendant the full amount of counsel fees sought (see [1323]*1323DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879, 881 [1987]). Present — Gorski, J.P., Martoche, Smith and Pine, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Brian F. DeJoseph, J.), entered May 26, 2005 in a divorce action. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, limited the award of maintenance and counsel fees to defendant.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment that, inter alia, granted plaintiff a divorce and awarded defendant maintenance in the amount of $1,000 per month “until the earliest of’ the death of either party, defendant’s remarriage or cohabitation within the meaning of Domestic Relations Law § 248, or a period of one year. Contrary to defendant’s contention, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the award of maintenance to, at most, a period of one year (see generally Schultz v Schultz, 309 AD2d 849 [2003]). Also contrary to defendant’s contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to award defendant the full amount of counsel fees sought (see [1323]*1323DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879, 881 [1987]). Present — Gorski, J.P., Martoche, Smith and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.3d 1322, 821 N.Y.S.2d 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marshall-v-marshall-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack