Frommer v. Frommer
| Decision Date | 21 September 1984 |
| Citation | 480 N.Y.S.2d 660,104 A.D.2d 726 |
| Parties | Mary E. FROMMER, Respondent, v. Kenneth FROMMER, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
De Santis & De Santis by Michael De Santis, Utica, for appellant.
Sue R. Baum, Utica, for respondent.
Before HANCOCK, J.P., and CALLAHAN, DENMAN, BOOMER and O'DONNELL, JJ.
The record supports the court's determination granting plaintiff a divorce on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment. Contrary to the mandatory language of the Domestic Relations Law (), however, the court failed to set forth the factors it considered in awarding child support and distributing the marital property (see Kobylack v. Kobylack, 62 N.Y.2d 399, 477 N.Y.S.2d 109, 465 N.E.2d 829; Gainer v. Gainer, 100 A.D.2d 533, 473 N.Y.S.2d 223; Paolini v. Paolini, 99 A.D.2d 742, 471 N.Y.S.2d 647; Nielsen v. Nielsen, 91 A.D.2d 1016, 457 N.Y.S.2d 888). It failed, also, to make sufficient findings of fact to support its conclusions concerning those awards . The award of $150 for child support alone cannot be sustained since the needs of the wife and the child were not separately stated and no finding was made as to the earning capacity of the husband (see Kay v. Kay, 37 N.Y.2d 632, 376 N.Y.S.2d 443, 339 N.E.2d 143). The matter is remitted to the trial court for a statement of the factors considered and for further findings. On remand, the court may wish to reconsider the issues of maintenance and child support and take further proof if necessary.
The judgment directs that in the event the husband declares bankruptcy, the husband shall remain personally liable on the joint obligations of the husband and wife. This direction is deleted from the judgment since the court has no right to interfere with the function of the Bankruptcy Court. It may, however, as an award of maintenance not subject to discharge in bankruptcy, direct that the spouse pay the joint obligations of both (Nesbit v. Nesbit, 80 N.M. 294, 454 P.2d 776; Collins v. Smith, 26 Ohio Misc. 231, 270 N.E.2d 377; Erickson v. Beardall, 20 Utah 2d 287, 437 P.2d 210). On remittitur, the court may reconsider this issue also.
Judgment unanimously modified on the law and facts and as modified affirmed without costs, and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Oneida...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ultramar Energy Ltd. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.
...priority of claims against the debtor would thus improperly interfere with the function of the bankruptcy court (Frommer v. Frommer, 104 A.D.2d 726, 480 N.Y.S.2d 660). Accordingly, I would affirm the dismissal of both the second and third causes of ...
-
Deckert v. Deckert
...court failed to set forth the factors it considered and the reasons for its decision in awarding child support (see, Frommer v. Frommer, 104 A.D.2d 726, 480 N.Y.S.2d 660; Gainer v. Gainer, 100 A.D.2d 533, 473 N.Y.S.2d 223; Nielsen v. Nielsen, 91 A.D.2d 1016, 457 N.Y.S.2d 888). While this co......
-
Bronstein v. Bronstein
...award must be vacated because the court failed to make sufficient findings of fact to support the award (see, Frommer v. Frommer, 104 A.D.2d 726, 480 N.Y.S.2d 660; CPLR 4213[b] ). Specifically, the court failed to state facts concerning the contributions made by the plaintiff to each of def......
- Pine Hill Concrete Mix Corp. v. State
-
C. Equitable Distribution
...368, 633 N.Y.S.2d 135 (1st Dep't 1995).[73] See Cohen v. Cohen, 104 A.D.2d 841, 480 N.Y.S.2d 358 (2d Dep't 1984); Frommer v. Frommer, 104 A.D.2d 726, 480 N.Y.S.2d 660 (4th Dep't 1984).[74] See Allen v. Allen, 179 A.D.3d 1318, 117 N.Y.S.3d 736 (3d Dep't 2020); Larowitz v. Lebetkin, 170 A.D.3......