Zema v. Zema

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zema v. Zema

294 A.D.2d 431, 741 N.Y.S.2d 920, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4880

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

DecidedMay 13, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 294 A.D.2d 431 (Zema v. Zema) 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

Zema v. Zema, 294 A.D.2d 431, 741 N.Y.S.2d 920, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Loughlin, J.), dated March 30, 2001, as granted that branch of her motion which was for pendente lite child support only to the extent of awarding her $600 per week, and directed the defendant to pay arrears in monthly installments.

[432]*432Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly declined to apply the Child Support Standards Act (Domestic Relations Law § 240) in determining the proper pendente lite child support to be awarded, as the combined parental income exceeded $80,000 (see Cassano v Cassano, 85 NY2d 649; Eckstein v Eckstein, 251 AD2d 537). Both parents have substantial income, and the court expressly considered their respective financial abilities, as well as the children’s preseparation standard of living, in directing support (see Schneider v Schneider, 264 AD2d 728; Celauro v Celauro, 257 AD2d 588).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Florio, J.P., O’Brien, McGinity and H. Miller, 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 wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Loughlin, J.), dated March 30, 2001, as granted that branch of her motion which was for pendente lite child support only to the extent of awarding her $600 per week, and directed the defendant to pay arrears in monthly installments.

[432]*432Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly declined to apply the Child Support Standards Act (Domestic Relations Law § 240) in determining the proper pendente lite child support to be awarded, as the combined parental income exceeded $80,000 (see Cassano v Cassano, 85 NY2d 649; Eckstein v Eckstein, 251 AD2d 537). Both parents have substantial income, and the court expressly considered their respective financial abilities, as well as the children’s preseparation standard of living, in directing support (see Schneider v Schneider, 264 AD2d 728; Celauro v Celauro, 257 AD2d 588).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Florio, J.P., O’Brien, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 431, 741 N.Y.S.2d 920, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zema-v-zema-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack