Wood v. Wood

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wood v. Wood

256 A.D.2d 1242, 682 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14440

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 1242 (Wood v. Wood) 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

Wood v. Wood, 256 A.D.2d 1242, 682 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14440 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Upon consideration of plaintiffs “reasonable needs and predivorce standard of living in the context of the enumerated statutory factors * * * (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a] [1]-[11])” (Hartog v Hartog, 85 NY2d 36, 52), we conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding plaintiff maintenance of $400 biweekly until defendant’s retirement (see, Boughton v Boughton, 239 AD2d 935). The court, however, should have awarded maintenance retroactive to February 13, 1995, the date of the application therefor (see, Do[1243]*1243mestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]; Lester v Lester, 237 AD2d 872, 873). We therefore modify the order by providing that maintenance is retroactive to that daté (see, DiSanto v DiSanto, 198 AD2d 838). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Nenno, J. — Matrimonial.) Present— Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Upon consideration of plaintiffs “reasonable needs and predivorce standard of living in the context of the enumerated statutory factors * * * (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a] [1]-[11])” (Hartog v Hartog, 85 NY2d 36, 52), we conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding plaintiff maintenance of $400 biweekly until defendant’s retirement (see, Boughton v Boughton, 239 AD2d 935). The court, however, should have awarded maintenance retroactive to February 13, 1995, the date of the application therefor (see, Do[1243]*1243mestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]; Lester v Lester, 237 AD2d 872, 873). We therefore modify the order by providing that maintenance is retroactive to that daté (see, DiSanto v DiSanto, 198 AD2d 838). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Nenno, J. — Matrimonial.) Present— Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 1242, 682 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wood-v-wood-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack