Patera v. Patera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Patera v. Patera

296 A.D.2d 570, 745 N.Y.S.2d 722, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7744

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

DecidedJuly 29, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 296 A.D.2d 570 (Patera v. Patera) 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

Patera v. Patera, 296 A.D.2d 570, 745 N.Y.S.2d 722, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7744 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk [571]*571County (Blydenburgh, J.), entered November 20, 2000, as directed him to pay the defendant maintenance in the sum of $200 per week for 11 years.

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

It is well settled that the amount and duration of maintenance is a matter committed to the trial court’s sound discretion (see Kahn v Kahn, 221 AD2d 320, 321; Feldman v Feldman, 194 AD2d 207, 217; Sperling v Sperling, 165 AD2d 338, 341). Under the circumstances presented here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in fashioning its maintenance award (see Castiglione v Castiglione, 259 AD2d 582, 583; Morrissey v Morrissey, 259 AD2d 472). O’Brien, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk [571]*571County (Blydenburgh, J.), entered November 20, 2000, as directed him to pay the defendant maintenance in the sum of $200 per week for 11 years.

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

It is well settled that the amount and duration of maintenance is a matter committed to the trial court’s sound discretion (see Kahn v Kahn, 221 AD2d 320, 321; Feldman v Feldman, 194 AD2d 207, 217; Sperling v Sperling, 165 AD2d 338, 341). Under the circumstances presented here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in fashioning its maintenance award (see Castiglione v Castiglione, 259 AD2d 582, 583; Morrissey v Morrissey, 259 AD2d 472). O’Brien, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 A.D.2d 570, 745 N.Y.S.2d 722, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patera-v-patera-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack