Di Mascio v. Di Mascio
| Decision Date | 21 June 1982 |
| Citation | 451 N.Y.S.2d 812,88 A.D.2d 966 |
| Parties | John P. DI MASCIO, Appellant, v. Angela DI MASCIO, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Joel R. Brandes, P. C., Garden City, for appellant.
Phillips & Weiner, Lindenhurst (Robert L. Weiner, Lindenhurst, of counsel), for respondent.
Before LAZER, J. P., and GIBBONS, GULOTTA and BRACKEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered August 4, 1981, as (1) directed him to pay alimony of $95 per week and child support of $30 per week per child (total of $90 per week as child support), (2) directed him to pay to defendant $2,500 in counsel fees, (3) awarded defendant custody of the three children with visitation rights for plaintiff and (4) directed plaintiff to give defendant exclusive use of the 1974 Datsun with insurance maintained by plaintiff.
Judgment modified, on the law and the facts, by (1) deleting from the fourth decretal paragraph the words "other than on school days", (2) deleting from the fifth decretal paragraph all the words after the word "except" and substituting therefor the words "extraordinary medical or dental expenses; and it is further", and (3) deleting from the seventh decretal paragraph the words "and plaintiff is directed to maintain liability insurance therefor". As so modified, judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The indirect award of car insurance premiums and ordinary medical costs are in the nature of open-ended obligations, which are improper (see 22 NYCRR 699.9 see, also, Murena v. Murena, 75 A.D.2d 640, 427 N.Y.S.2d 289; Troiano v. Troiano, 87 A.D.2d 588, 447 N.Y.S.2d 753 Wurm v. Wurm, 87 A.D.2d 590, 447 N.Y.S.2d 758 ). These costs should have been included--and we now view them as included--in the determination of alimony and child support (see Doris v. Doris, 81 A.D.2d 602, 437 N.Y.S.2d 716). This does not preclude the defendant, however, from applying to either the Supreme Court or Family Court for payment of future extraordinary medical or dental expenses for herself or the children or for payment of the expense of extraordinary house repairs (22 NYCRR 699.9 Troiano v. Troiano, supra ).
The grant to defendant of the custody of the three children was not an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Richards v. Richards, 78 A.D.2d 943, 433 N.Y.S.2d 259)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Price v. Price
...(see, Armando v. Armando, App.Div., 495 N.Y.S.2d 192; Troiano v. Troiano, 87 A.D.2d 588, 447 N.Y.S.2d 753; Di Mascio v. Di Mascio, 88 A.D.2d 966, 967, 451 N.Y.S.2d 812). Rather, under the circumstances of this case, we find that Special Term should have directed defendant to provide medical......
-
Garvin v. Garvin
...calls to his/her children is not appropriate absent a showing that such calls disrupted the household (see, Di Mascio v. Di Mascio, 88 A.D.2d 966, 967, 451 N.Y.S.2d 812). The testimony of the witnesses, and the contents of almost three hours of audio-tapes admitted into evidence, clearly de......
-
Menegis v. Menegis
...awarded to plaintiff in the judgment (see 22 NYCRR 699.9 De Lora v. De Lora, 88 A.D.2d 944, 451 N.Y.S.2d 182; Di Mascio v. Di Mascio, 88 A.D.2d 966, 451 N.Y.S.2d 812; Troiano v. Troiano, 87 A.D.2d 588, 447 N.Y.S.2d 753; Murena v. Murena, 75 A.D.2d 640, 427 N.Y.S.2d While the court acknowled......
-
Margolis v. Hawkins
...the defendant has custody since there was no evidence that the plaintiff's phone calls disrupted the household (see, Di Mascio v. Di Mascio, 88 A.D.2d 966, 451 N.Y.S.2d 812; cf., Matter of Garvin v. Garvin, In addition, the court erred to the extent that it addressed in the judgment the dis......