Porter v. Porter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Porter v. Porter

288 A.D.2d 363, 733 N.Y.S.2d 636, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11248

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

DecidedNovember 19, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 288 A.D.2d 363 (Porter v. Porter) 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

Porter v. Porter, 288 A.D.2d 363, 733 N.Y.S.2d 636, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11248 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.), dated July 5, 2000, as terminated the defendant’s obligation to pay maintenance, and denied her request for an award of an attorney’s fee.

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

Contrary to the plaintiffs contentions, an award of lifetime maintenance is not appropriate under these circumstances (see, Sitler v Sitter, 251 AD2d 319; Liadis v Liadis, 207 AD2d 331; cf., Borra v Borra, 218 AD2d 780).

The plaintiffs request for an award of an attorneys fee was properly denied (see, Kayden v Kayden, 278 AD2d 202). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano and Smith, 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 wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.), dated July 5, 2000, as terminated the defendant’s obligation to pay maintenance, and denied her request for an award of an attorney’s fee.

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

Contrary to the plaintiffs contentions, an award of lifetime maintenance is not appropriate under these circumstances (see, Sitler v Sitter, 251 AD2d 319; Liadis v Liadis, 207 AD2d 331; cf., Borra v Borra, 218 AD2d 780).

The plaintiffs request for an award of an attorneys fee was properly denied (see, Kayden v Kayden, 278 AD2d 202). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 363, 733 N.Y.S.2d 636, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porter-v-porter-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack