Rattler v. Rattler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rattler v. Rattler

264 A.D.2d 768, 695 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9255

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

DecidedSeptember 20, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 264 A.D.2d 768 (Rattler v. Rattler) 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

Rattler v. Rattler, 264 A.D.2d 768, 695 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9255 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McNulty, J.), entered May 18, 1998, which, inter alia, awarded the plaintiff wife custody of the parties’ two infant children, maintenance, and child support, and (2) an order of the same court, dated October 22, 1998, which, inter alia, awarded the plaintiff arrears in maintenance and child support in the sum of $6,072 pursuant to the judgment.

Ordered that the judgment and order are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The court’s determination that it was in the best interests of the children to award custody to the plaintiff has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 95; Young v Young, 212 AD2d 114, 117).

In addition, the court’s determination to award the plaintiff child support and maintenance arrears commencing from the [769]*769date that she first demanded the relief in her original complaint was proper (see, Reutenauer v Reutenauer, 229 AD2d 776; see also, King v King, 230 AD2d 775; Forbush v Forbush, 115 AD2d 335; Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Friedmann and Florio, 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 defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McNulty, J.), entered May 18, 1998, which, inter alia, awarded the plaintiff wife custody of the parties’ two infant children, maintenance, and child support, and (2) an order of the same court, dated October 22, 1998, which, inter alia, awarded the plaintiff arrears in maintenance and child support in the sum of $6,072 pursuant to the judgment.

Ordered that the judgment and order are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The court’s determination that it was in the best interests of the children to award custody to the plaintiff has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 95; Young v Young, 212 AD2d 114, 117).

In addition, the court’s determination to award the plaintiff child support and maintenance arrears commencing from the [769]*769date that she first demanded the relief in her original complaint was proper (see, Reutenauer v Reutenauer, 229 AD2d 776; see also, King v King, 230 AD2d 775; Forbush v Forbush, 115 AD2d 335; Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 768, 695 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rattler-v-rattler-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack