Remetich v. Schoenberg

100 A.D.2d 581, 473 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17558
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 19, 1984
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 100 A.D.2d 581 (Remetich v. Schoenberg) 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
Remetich v. Schoenberg, 100 A.D.2d 581, 473 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17558 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

In a proceeding to modify an order of alimony and child support, the husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Ryan, J.), dated May 17, 1983, as (1) increased child support from $50 a week to $90 a week and (2) awarded petitioner wife counsel fees in the amount of $2,000. 11 Order reversed, insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, and the applications to increase child support and for counsel fees are denied. 11 The evidence presented at the hearing held herein failed to show that the husband had sustained a substantial increase in income justifying the increased award of child support. Although the wife contended in her petition that special funds were required to care for her son’s extraordinary dental care, no proof was offered to support such a claim and it appears that any and all medical and dental care required for the parties’ children is covered in toto by dental and medical insurance plans provided to the parties through their employment by the New York City Board of Education as teachers. Similarly, it appears that not only are the parties receiving incomes nearly equal in amount from such employment, but the wife also receives rent from an apartment in the former marital dwelling which was deeded to her as part of the original settlement of this matter. In view of the foregoing, the upward modification in child support is not supported by the evidence. Similarly, an award of counsel fees by one spouse to another where both parties are similarly situated financially is both erroneous and inappropriate (see Ackerman v Ackerman, 96 AD2d 543). Gibbons, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Mineo v. Mineo
191 A.D.2d 1002 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Becker v. Becker
145 A.D.2d 968 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Pagan v. Pagan
138 A.D.2d 685 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio
131 A.D.2d 536 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Cassano v. Cassano
111 A.D.2d 208 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
100 A.D.2d 581, 473 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/remetich-v-schoenberg-nyappdiv-1984.