Thea v. Thea

75 A.D.2d 618, 427 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11078
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 21, 1980
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 75 A.D.2d 618 (Thea v. Thea) 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
Thea v. Thea, 75 A.D.2d 618, 427 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11078 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

In a matrimonial action, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated October 15, 1979, as granted the defendant temporary alimony in the amount of $600 per week retroactive to July 27,1979, and directed the plaintiff to liquidate the accumulated arrears at the rate of $100 per week until fully paid. Order modified by decreasing the amount awarded as temporary alimony to $400 per week. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Given the wife’s substantial resources, the age of the parties, the relative brevity of the marriage and the absence of any children of the union, we believe that the award of temporary alimony was excessive to the extent indicated herein (see Mendelsohn v Mendelsohn, 36 AD2d 952; Weinberg v Weinberg, 23 AD2d 569; Walker v Walker, 18 AD2d 684). We wish to note that our modification of the award of temporary alimony is not meant to signal any change in our general policy toward such matters (see, e.g., De Rosa v De Rosa, 68 AD2d 923; Schwartz v Schwartz, 59 AD2d 905; Bogut v Bogut, 38 AD2d 829), but rather, is predicated on the requirements of justice under the unusual facts and circumstances of this case (cf. La Pommeray v La Pommeray, 56 AD2d 838). Our modification of the award of temporary alimony is not intended to influence or otherwise affect the trial court in determining whether or in what amount permanent alimony should be awarded (see Walker v Walker, supra). This matter should proceed to trial without further delay. Rabin, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Lloyd v. McGrath
246 A.D.2d 630 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Van Ess v. Van Ess
100 A.D.2d 848 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Dyson v. Dyson
92 A.D.2d 857 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Kaltenbach v. Kaltenbach
88 A.D.2d 582 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Horn v. Horn
76 A.D.2d 826 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
75 A.D.2d 618, 427 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11078, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thea-v-thea-nyappdiv-1980.