Osha v. Olurotimi Osha

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Osha v. Olurotimi Osha

101 A.D.3d 481, 956 N.Y.2d 15

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

DecidedDecember 13, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 101 A.D.3d 481 (Osha v. Olurotimi Osha) 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

Osha v. Olurotimi Osha, 101 A.D.3d 481, 956 N.Y.2d 15 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

There is no basis for disturbing the court’s award of temporary maintenance. In calculating the award, the court correctly applied the formula set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5-a) (c) (1) (see Khaira v Khaira, 93 AD3d 194, 197 [1st Dept 2012]). The court considered numerous statutory factors and found that the statutory presumptive or guideline amount of temporary maintenance of $1,959.86 per month was “unjust or inappropriate” (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5-a] [e] [1]). The court set forth the amount of the unadjusted presumptive award, the factors it considered, and the reasons that it adjusted the presumptive award (§ 236 [B] [5-a] [e] [2]). The court providently exercised its discretion in imputing gross annual income to defendant in the amount of $90,000, given defendant’s past work experience and educational background (see Hickland v Hickland, 39 NY2d 1, 5 [1976], cert denied 429 US 941 [1976]).

The court’s award of $10,000 to defendant’s attorney for interim counsel fees, rather than the $25,000 defendant requested, was a provident exercise of discretion (see Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]). Although defendant is the less monied [482]*482spouse, this divorce action is unlikely to be prolonged, as the parties have little marital assets and no children.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Acosta and Román, JJ.

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

There is no basis for disturbing the court’s award of temporary maintenance. In calculating the award, the court correctly applied the formula set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5-a) (c) (1) (see Khaira v Khaira, 93 AD3d 194, 197 [1st Dept 2012]). The court considered numerous statutory factors and found that the statutory presumptive or guideline amount of temporary maintenance of $1,959.86 per month was “unjust or inappropriate” (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5-a] [e] [1]). The court set forth the amount of the unadjusted presumptive award, the factors it considered, and the reasons that it adjusted the presumptive award (§ 236 [B] [5-a] [e] [2]). The court providently exercised its discretion in imputing gross annual income to defendant in the amount of $90,000, given defendant’s past work experience and educational background (see Hickland v Hickland, 39 NY2d 1, 5 [1976], cert denied 429 US 941 [1976]).

The court’s award of $10,000 to defendant’s attorney for interim counsel fees, rather than the $25,000 defendant requested, was a provident exercise of discretion (see Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]). Although defendant is the less monied [482]*482spouse, this divorce action is unlikely to be prolonged, as the parties have little marital assets and no children.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Acosta and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.3d 481, 956 N.Y.2d 15, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osha-v-olurotimi-osha-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack