Otto v. Otto

13 A.D.3d 503, 787 N.Y.S.2d 375, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15592
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 20, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 13 A.D.3d 503 (Otto v. Otto) 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
Otto v. Otto, 13 A.D.3d 503, 787 N.Y.S.2d 375, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15592 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Sgroi, J.), dated March 14, 2003, as directed him to pay pendente lite maintenance and child support.

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

Modifications of pendente lite awards should rarely be made by an appellate court and then only under exigent circumstances (see Albanese v Albanese, 234 AD2d 489 [1996]). Under the circumstances of this case, the pendente lite order of the Supreme Court should not be disturbed on appeal.

The husband contends that the Supreme Court erred in directing him to pay both child support and the carrying charges on the marital residence because this resulted in a double shelter allowance. The husband’s contention is without merit. Since the Supreme Court did not apply the Child Support Standards Act in fixing pendente lite child support, there is no requirement that the court deduct the amount awarded for carrying charges before determining the appropriate amount of child support (see Fischman v Fischman, 209 AD2d 916 [1994]; cf. George v George, 192 AD2d 693 [1993]).

[504]*504The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Adams, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Gonzalez-Furtado v. Furtado
2023 NY Slip Op 06125 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Barra v. Barra
2021 NY Slip Op 01022 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Jin C. v. Juliana L.
137 A.D.3d 1063 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Margolin v. Margolin
117 A.D.3d 996 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Vistocco v. Jardine
116 A.D.3d 842 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Davydova v. Sasonov
109 A.D.3d 955 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Avello v. Avello
72 A.D.3d 850 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Nealis v. Nealis
71 A.D.3d 851 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Maksoud v. Maksoud
71 A.D.3d 643 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Paul v. Paul
67 A.D.3d 757 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Ayoub v. Ayoub
63 A.D.3d 493 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 A.D.3d 503, 787 N.Y.S.2d 375, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/otto-v-otto-nyappdiv-2004.