Boughton v. Boughton
| Decision Date | 30 May 1997 |
| Citation | 239 A.D.2d 935,659 N.Y.S.2d 607 |
| Parties | Ralph BOUGHTON, Appellant, v. Yvonne BOUGHTON, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Dennis R. Dawson, Geneseo, for Appellant.
Valerie G. Knights, Calendonia, for Respondent.
Before GREEN, J.P., and PINE, LAWTON, CALLAHAN and FALLON, JJ.
As a general rule, the amount and duration of maintenance are matters committed to the sound discretion of the trial court (see, Shew v. Shew, 193 A.D.2d 1142, 1143, 598 N.Y.S.2d 623; Wilner v. Wilner, 192 A.D.2d 524, 525, 595 N.Y.S.2d 978). Nevertheless, "[i]n determining questions of maintenance, the authority of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court" (Marino v. Marino, 229 A.D.2d 971, 972, 645 N.Y.S.2d 252, citing Baumgart v. Baumgart, 199 A.D.2d 1049, 1049-1050, 605 N.Y.S.2d 610). In fashioning a fair and equitable maintenance award, both this Court and the trial court "must consider the payee spouse's reasonable needs and predivorce standard of living in the context of the other enumerated statutory factors * * * (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][6][a][1]-[11] )" (Hartog v. Hartog, 85 N.Y.2d 36, 52, 623 N.Y.S.2d 537, 647 N.E.2d 749).
Supreme Court did not comply with that statutory mandate when it calculated the amount of maintenance based solely upon the predivorce standard of living. The court erred in failing to consider the calculation by defendant of her reasonable needs (cf., Hoyt v. Hoyt, 166 A.D.2d 800, 801, 563 N.Y.S.2d 161), plaintiff's ability to provide for those needs (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][6][a] ) or any of the other factors enumerated in the statute (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][6][a][1]-[11] ). Based upon those factors, we conclude that the amount of maintenance awarded by the court is excessive, and we modify the judgment by decreasing the award to $80 per week. In light of the duration of the marriage and defendant's age, present job skills and future earning capacity, we conclude that the award of lifetime maintenance is proper (see, Behrmann v. Behrmann, 204 A.D.2d 1076, 613 N.Y.S.2d 80; Wilner v. Wilner, supra, at 526, 595 N.Y.S.2d 978).
Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Town of Riverhead v. Cnty. of Suffolk
-
Salvato v. Salvato
...669). “[T]he amount and duration of maintenance are matters committed to the sound discretion of the trial court” ( Boughton v. Boughton, 239 A.D.2d 935, 935, 659 N.Y.S.2d 607). Here, the court considered all the factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(6)(a), and properly balan......
-
Smith v. Smith
...We agree. Although the court has broad discretion in fixing the amount and duration of a maintenance award ( see Boughton v. Boughton, 239 A.D.2d 935, 659 N.Y.S.2d 607), "the authority of this Court [in determining questions of maintenance] is as broad as that of the trial court" ( Marino v......
-
Perry v. Perry
...rule, the amount and duration of maintenance are matters committed to the sound discretion of the trial court” ( Boughton v. Boughton, 239 A.D.2d 935, 935, 659 N.Y.S.2d 607;see Scala v. Scala, 59 A.D.3d 1042, 1043, 873 N.Y.S.2d 787;Frost v. Frost, 49 A.D.3d 1150, 1150–1151, 854 N.Y.S.2d 621......