Askinas v. Askinas
| Decision Date | 13 November 1989 |
| Citation | 155 A.D.2d 498,547 N.Y.S.2d 360 |
| Parties | Colleen ASKINAS, Respondent, v. Richard ASKINAS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Bizar D'Alessandro Shustak & Martin, New York City (Meissner Tisch & Kleinberg, George S. Meissner, of counsel), for appellant.
Roussillon & Collins, Hauppauge (Dennis C. Collins, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and KUNZEMAN, KOOPER and BALLETTA, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hurley, J.), entered October 20, 1988, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiff wife pendente lite child support and denied his cross motion for pendente lite child support.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The parties were married in 1982 and have one child, a daughter, who was born in February of 1987. The parties separated in April 1988 when the plaintiff left the marital residence, taking the infant with her. This divorce action was commenced a month later. The defendant earns approximately $60,000 per year, $54,000 of which constitutes income from family trusts. The plaintiff earns approximately $39,000 per year as a teacher for the Kings Park School District. Both parties moved for temporary custody and child support. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, referred the issue of custody to the trial court, maintained residential care of the infant with the plaintiff, and directed the defendant to pay $150 per week temporary child support.
Without question, the primary consideration in all custody disputes is the best interest of the child (see, Keating v. Keating, 147 A.D.2d 675, 538 N.Y.S.2d 286). Where the parties are in sharp disagreement as to the relative fitness or unfitness of the other spouse to be the custodial parent, we have often held that the court should first hold a hearing before determining custody (see, e.g., Biagi v. Biagi, 124 A.D.2d 770, 508 N.Y.S.2d 488). However, we have also recognized that "[i]n some cases, a party claiming to be aggrieved by a [pendente lite] order, even if it was made without a hearing, will be required to seek an expeditious trial" (Biagi v. Biagi, supra, at 771, 508 N.Y.S.2d 488).
In the instant case, the court did not make any award of custody; rather, it deferred the issue of custody to the trial court and merely retained residential care with the plaintiff. There is no evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lazich v. Lazich
...without first holding a hearing under the facts of this case (see, Krantz v. Krantz, 175 A.D.2d 863, 573 N.Y.S.2d 736; Askinas v. Askinas, 155 A.D.2d 498, 547 N.Y.S.2d 360). Moreover, the husband has failed to submit any evidence indicating that a change in custody or visitation would be in......
-
Capolino v. Capolino
...While this sort of de facto custody determination has received appellate approval on at least one occasion (see, Askinas v. Askinas, 155 A.D.2d 498, 547 N.Y.S.2d 360), in that case there was no record evidence of parental unfitness and the court provided the noncustodial parent with regular......
-
KCC v. HKY
... ... N.Y.2d 89 [1982]; Meirowitz v. Meirowitz, 96 A.D.2d ... 1030 [2d Dept 1983]; Girardi v. Girardi, 140 A.D.2d ... 486 [2d Dept 1988]; Askinas v. Askinas, 155 A.D.2d ... 498 [2d Dept 1989]) ... Contrary ... to the Plaintiff's contention, after considering all the ... ...
-
Shanon v. Patterson, 01-01581
...pendente lite custody (see Okerblom v Okerblom, 265 A.D.2d 414, 415; Hoenig v Hoenig, supra; Kehoe v Kehoe, 234 A.D.2d 272; Askinas v Askinas, 155 A.D.2d 498). In addition, the record reflects the fact that the defendant left the marital residence and has established his own residence, and ......