Nayar v. Nayar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nayar v. Nayar

225 A.D.2d 370, 638 N.Y.2d 647, 638 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2210

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 370 (Nayar v. Nayar) 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

Nayar v. Nayar, 225 A.D.2d 370, 638 N.Y.2d 647, 638 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2210 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The award of temporary maintenance was properly based upon the statutory factors (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6]), taking into account plaintiffs reasonable needs, defendant’s financial ability, the parties’ prior lavish standard of living, and the great discrepancy between their financial positions (see, Baker v Baker, 120 AD2d 374; Lasry v Lasry, 180 AD2d 488). It was also within the court’s discretion to award interim counsel fees (Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]), without a showing of need or requiring that plaintiff dispose of her only assets (see, DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879, 881). The court also properly considered statutory calculations as well as factors permitting a deviation therefrom (Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [c], [f]) in awarding interim child support (see, Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N Y. v Raymond S., 180 AD2d 510). While defendant contends that the total award exceeds his monthly income, the record reveals substantial understatement of income. To the extent any inequities may exist, defendant’s remedy is to proceed to a speedy trial (see, Hills v Hills, 182 AD2d 584). Concur— Wallach, J. P., Ross, Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

The award of temporary maintenance was properly based upon the statutory factors (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6]), taking into account plaintiffs reasonable needs, defendant’s financial ability, the parties’ prior lavish standard of living, and the great discrepancy between their financial positions (see, Baker v Baker, 120 AD2d 374; Lasry v Lasry, 180 AD2d 488). It was also within the court’s discretion to award interim counsel fees (Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]), without a showing of need or requiring that plaintiff dispose of her only assets (see, DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879, 881). The court also properly considered statutory calculations as well as factors permitting a deviation therefrom (Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [c], [f]) in awarding interim child support (see, Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N Y. v Raymond S., 180 AD2d 510). While defendant contends that the total award exceeds his monthly income, the record reveals substantial understatement of income. To the extent any inequities may exist, defendant’s remedy is to proceed to a speedy trial (see, Hills v Hills, 182 AD2d 584). Concur— Wallach, J. P., Ross, Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 370, 638 N.Y.2d 647, 638 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nayar-v-nayar-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack