Rosenthal v. Rosenthal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosenthal v. Rosenthal

118 A.D.2d 845, 500 N.Y.S.2d 331, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54698

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 118 A.D.2d 845 (Rosenthal v. Rosenthal) 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

Rosenthal v. Rosenthal, 118 A.D.2d 845, 500 N.Y.S.2d 331, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54698 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated October 3, 1985, as directed her (1) to pay the defendant husband $50 per week, pendente lite, for the support and maintenance of each of the two infant issue of the marriage, for a total $100 per week, including any retroactive amounts accrued from the date of the application, and (2) to pay, pendente lite, one half of all carrying costs on the marital residence.

Order modified, as a matter of discretion, by reducing the temporary child support to $25 per child per week, for a total of $50 per week, retroactive to the date of the application and by deleting the provision ordering plaintiff to pay one half the carrying costs on the marital residence. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The standard applied to applications for pendente lite relief is whether the moving party is in genuine need of support in order to live in a reasonable fashion during the pendency of the case and whether the other party has the means to provide this support (Domestic Relations Law, § 236 [B] [7] [a]). An examination of the record in this matter leads us to the conclusion that the award of temporary child support made by Special Term should be reduced to a total of $50 per week for the two infant issue of the marriage and further that the plaintiff does not have the financial ability to pay one half the carrying charges on the marital residence. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Spatt, 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 an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated October 3, 1985, as directed her (1) to pay the defendant husband $50 per week, pendente lite, for the support and maintenance of each of the two infant issue of the marriage, for a total $100 per week, including any retroactive amounts accrued from the date of the application, and (2) to pay, pendente lite, one half of all carrying costs on the marital residence.

Order modified, as a matter of discretion, by reducing the temporary child support to $25 per child per week, for a total of $50 per week, retroactive to the date of the application and by deleting the provision ordering plaintiff to pay one half the carrying costs on the marital residence. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The standard applied to applications for pendente lite relief is whether the moving party is in genuine need of support in order to live in a reasonable fashion during the pendency of the case and whether the other party has the means to provide this support (Domestic Relations Law, § 236 [B] [7] [a]). An examination of the record in this matter leads us to the conclusion that the award of temporary child support made by Special Term should be reduced to a total of $50 per week for the two infant issue of the marriage and further that the plaintiff does not have the financial ability to pay one half the carrying charges on the marital residence. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.2d 845, 500 N.Y.S.2d 331, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenthal-v-rosenthal-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack