Sofien v. Noel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sofien v. Noel

60 A.D.3d 1387, 874 N.Y.S.2d 839

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

DecidedMarch 20, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 60 A.D.3d 1387 (Sofien v. Noel) 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

Sofien v. Noel, 60 A.D.3d 1387, 874 N.Y.S.2d 839 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Ralph A. Boniello, III, J.), entered January 25, 2008. The order denied the request of plaintiff Judith Diane Noel for maintenance.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Contrary to the contention of Judith Diane Noel (plaintiff), Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in adopting the report and decision of the Matrimonial Referee declining to award her maintenance (see generally Holmes v Holmes, 25 AD3d 931, 932 [2006]). The Matrimonial Referee properly determined, after considering the predivorce standard of living as well as the other factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a), that an award of maintenance to plaintiff was not warranted (see Boardman v Boardman, 300 AD2d 1110 [2002]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Peradotto, Garni and Green, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Ralph A. Boniello, III, J.), entered January 25, 2008. The order denied the request of plaintiff Judith Diane Noel for maintenance.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Contrary to the contention of Judith Diane Noel (plaintiff), Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in adopting the report and decision of the Matrimonial Referee declining to award her maintenance (see generally Holmes v Holmes, 25 AD3d 931, 932 [2006]). The Matrimonial Referee properly determined, after considering the predivorce standard of living as well as the other factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a), that an award of maintenance to plaintiff was not warranted (see Boardman v Boardman, 300 AD2d 1110 [2002]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Peradotto, Garni and Green, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.3d 1387, 874 N.Y.S.2d 839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sofien-v-noel-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack