Tarascio v. Tarascio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tarascio v. Tarascio

183 A.D.2d 890, 585 N.Y.S.2d 59, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7591

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

DecidedMay 26, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 183 A.D.2d 890 (Tarascio v. Tarascio) 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

Tarascio v. Tarascio, 183 A.D.2d 890, 585 N.Y.S.2d 59, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7591 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), dated April 10, 1990, as, after a nonjury trial, (1) awarded child support to the plaintiff wife in the [891]*891amount of $8,555.32 per annum ($4,277.66 per child), (2) directed the defendant to pay certain outstanding bills, (3) distributed the parties’ marital property, and (4) awarded the plaintiff $8,500 in counsel fees and disbursements.

Ordered that the judgment is modified,- on the law, by reducing the combined annual total child support to $7,255.33, and adding thereto a provision adjusting the combined annual total child support to $8,555.32 upon termination of maintenance to the plaintiff; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for entry of an appropriate amended judgment.

Contrary to the husband’s contention, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding the wife $4,000 as her equitable share of an Oldsmobile automobile valued at $19,000, which remains in the husband’s possession. Furthermore, the court properly directed the husband to pay the marital debts.

We find, however, that the court, in computing the husband’s income to determine the basic child support obligation, neglected to reduce the husband’s income by the amount of maintenance to be paid to the wife pursuant to the judgment of divorce (see, Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [b] [5] [vii] [C]).

It was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the court to award the wife approximately one half of her attorneys’ fees considering her inability to pay the entire cost of her legal representation and that some of her legal fees were incurred because the husband failed to comply with a prior order of the court (see, Ginsberg v Ginsberg, 164 AD2d 906; Denholz v Denholz, 147 AD2d 522). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and O’Brien, 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 so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), dated April 10, 1990, as, after a nonjury trial, (1) awarded child support to the plaintiff wife in the [891]*891amount of $8,555.32 per annum ($4,277.66 per child), (2) directed the defendant to pay certain outstanding bills, (3) distributed the parties’ marital property, and (4) awarded the plaintiff $8,500 in counsel fees and disbursements.

Ordered that the judgment is modified,- on the law, by reducing the combined annual total child support to $7,255.33, and adding thereto a provision adjusting the combined annual total child support to $8,555.32 upon termination of maintenance to the plaintiff; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for entry of an appropriate amended judgment.

Contrary to the husband’s contention, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding the wife $4,000 as her equitable share of an Oldsmobile automobile valued at $19,000, which remains in the husband’s possession. Furthermore, the court properly directed the husband to pay the marital debts.

We find, however, that the court, in computing the husband’s income to determine the basic child support obligation, neglected to reduce the husband’s income by the amount of maintenance to be paid to the wife pursuant to the judgment of divorce (see, Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [b] [5] [vii] [C]).

It was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the court to award the wife approximately one half of her attorneys’ fees considering her inability to pay the entire cost of her legal representation and that some of her legal fees were incurred because the husband failed to comply with a prior order of the court (see, Ginsberg v Ginsberg, 164 AD2d 906; Denholz v Denholz, 147 AD2d 522). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 A.D.2d 890, 585 N.Y.S.2d 59, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tarascio-v-tarascio-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack