Osborne v. Osborne

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Osborne v. Osborne

169 A.D.2d 641, 564 N.Y.S.2d 773, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 596

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 169 A.D.2d 641 (Osborne v. Osborne) 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

Osborne v. Osborne, 169 A.D.2d 641, 564 N.Y.S.2d 773, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 596 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Ciparick, J.), entered November 24, 1989, which, inter alia, awarded plaintiff temporary maintenance of $150 per week, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[642]*642Defendant’s argument that the trial court erroneously applied the financial information contained in defendant’s sworn submissions, and that consequently the temporary maintenance award herein is excessive, is not supported by the record. The trial court duly considered and balanced the relevant factors enumerated in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) in granting this relatively modest award (Baker v Baker, 120 AD2d 374). The appropriate remedy for a dispute over a temporary award of maintenance is a prompt trial. (Sayer v Sayer, 130 AD2d 407.) Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Ciparick, J.), entered November 24, 1989, which, inter alia, awarded plaintiff temporary maintenance of $150 per week, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[642]*642Defendant’s argument that the trial court erroneously applied the financial information contained in defendant’s sworn submissions, and that consequently the temporary maintenance award herein is excessive, is not supported by the record. The trial court duly considered and balanced the relevant factors enumerated in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) in granting this relatively modest award (Baker v Baker, 120 AD2d 374). The appropriate remedy for a dispute over a temporary award of maintenance is a prompt trial. (Sayer v Sayer, 130 AD2d 407.) Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 A.D.2d 641, 564 N.Y.S.2d 773, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osborne-v-osborne-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack