Zaky v. Andil

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zaky v. Andil

81 A.D.3d 842, 916 N.Y.S.2d 809

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 81 A.D.3d 842 (Zaky v. Andil) 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

Zaky v. Andil, 81 A.D.3d 842, 916 N.Y.S.2d 809 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

In related support proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act [843]*843article 4, the husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Sammarco, J.), dated June 29, 2009, as denied his objections to so much of an order of the same court (Kaufman, S.M.), entered April 17, 2009, as granted, after a hearing, that branch of the wife’s petition which was for spousal support.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Pursuant to Family Court Act § 412, “[a] married person is chargeable with the support of his or her spouse and, if possessed of sufficient means or able to earn such means, may be required to pay for his or her support a fair and reasonable sum, as the court may determine, having due regard to the circumstances of the respective parties.” The determination of a spouse’s support obligation depends on the particular circumstances of the case, including each spouse’s financial means, each spouse’s need to have money to live on after payments are made, the duration of the marriage, and each spouse’s ability to be self-supporting (see Matter of Christian v Christian, 5 AD3d 765 [2004]; Matter of Brandt v Brandt, 205 AD2d 767, 768 [1994]; Polite v Polite, 127 AD2d 465, 467 [1987]). Under the circumstances presented here, we perceive no basis to disturb the Family Court’s determination. Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

In related support proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act [843]*843article 4, the husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Sammarco, J.), dated June 29, 2009, as denied his objections to so much of an order of the same court (Kaufman, S.M.), entered April 17, 2009, as granted, after a hearing, that branch of the wife’s petition which was for spousal support.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Pursuant to Family Court Act § 412, “[a] married person is chargeable with the support of his or her spouse and, if possessed of sufficient means or able to earn such means, may be required to pay for his or her support a fair and reasonable sum, as the court may determine, having due regard to the circumstances of the respective parties.” The determination of a spouse’s support obligation depends on the particular circumstances of the case, including each spouse’s financial means, each spouse’s need to have money to live on after payments are made, the duration of the marriage, and each spouse’s ability to be self-supporting (see Matter of Christian v Christian, 5 AD3d 765 [2004]; Matter of Brandt v Brandt, 205 AD2d 767, 768 [1994]; Polite v Polite, 127 AD2d 465, 467 [1987]). Under the circumstances presented here, we perceive no basis to disturb the Family Court’s determination. Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 A.D.3d 842, 916 N.Y.S.2d 809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zaky-v-andil-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack