Siko v. Siko

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Siko v. Siko

66 A.D.2d 817, 411 N.Y.S.2d 206, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14134

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

DecidedDecember 18, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 66 A.D.2d 817 (Siko v. Siko) 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

Siko v. Siko, 66 A.D.2d 817, 411 N.Y.S.2d 206, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14134 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

In a divorce action, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, entered May 1, 1978, as required him to pay alimony, child support and the carrying charges on the marital home, on the ground that the total amount of the awards was excessive. Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. On this record, we agree with the trial court that the defendant’s total income is in excess of his reported income, and that the support provisions reflect the actual needs of the wife and the two children, based upon their preseparation marital [818]*818standard of living, and are justified by the facts adduced at the trial. Latham, J. P., Rabin, Cohalan and Hargett, JJ., concur.

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

In a divorce action, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, entered May 1, 1978, as required him to pay alimony, child support and the carrying charges on the marital home, on the ground that the total amount of the awards was excessive. Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. On this record, we agree with the trial court that the defendant’s total income is in excess of his reported income, and that the support provisions reflect the actual needs of the wife and the two children, based upon their preseparation marital [818]*818standard of living, and are justified by the facts adduced at the trial. Latham, J. P., Rabin, Cohalan and Hargett, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 A.D.2d 817, 411 N.Y.S.2d 206, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siko-v-siko-nyappdiv-1978.