Hornbeck v. Hornbeck

CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
Writing for the CourtBefore TITONE
CitationHornbeck v. Hornbeck, 472 N.Y.S.2d 456, 99 A.D.2d 851 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Decision Date29 February 1984
PartiesPaul D. HORNBECK, Appellant, v. Barbara HORNBECK, Respondent.

Martin S. Schrader, Centerreach, for appellant.

N. Richard Wool, Woodbury, for respondent.

Before TITONE, J.P., and MANGANO, GIBBONS and BROWN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

On the court's own motion, the decision and order of this court both dated February 14, 1984 are recalled and vacated, and the following decision is substituted therefor:

In a matrimonial action, plaintiff husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered June 1, 1983, which, inter alia, directed him to pay to defendant wife $200 per week for maintenance for a period of three years or until defendant remarries, whichever event occurs first, $300 per week for child support, $11,000 in counsel fees, and a distributive award in the sum of $33,537, payable at the rate of $2,000 per month.

Matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for compliance with the provisions of paragraph g of subdivision 5, paragraph b of subdivision 6 and paragraph b of subdivision 7 of part B of section 236 of the Domestic Relations Law; and appeal held in abeyance in the interim. Special Term shall file its findings with this court no later than March 20, 1984.

This action is governed by the provisions of part B of section 236 of the Domestic Relations Law.

In Nielsen v. Nielsen, 91 A.D.2d 1016, 457 N.Y.S.2d 888 this court noted:

"In enacting part B of section 236 of the Domestic Relations Law, the Legislature deemed it advisable to require a court to consider specifically enumerated factors in making financial dispositions and to set forth the factors considered and the reasons for its decision. Section 236 (part B, subd 5, par d), for instance, sets forth 10 factors the court 'shall consider' in determining the equitable disposition of property and paragraph g of that subdivision states that 'the court shall set forth the factors it considered and the reasons for its decision and such may not be waived by either party or counsel'. Similarly, section 236 (part B, subd 6, par a) sets forth 10 factors the court 'shall consider' in determining the amount and duration of a maintenance award and paragraph b of that subdivision reiterates that the court 'shall set forth' the factors and the reasons for its decision. Again, section 236 (part B, subd 7,...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
18 cases
  • Otto v. Otto
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • September 11, 1989
    ...7, par a). It is mandatory that the court set forth these statutory factors together with the reasons for its decision (see, Hornbeck v Hornbeck, 99 AD2d 851; Durso v Durso, 99 AD2d 478, Nielsen v Nielsen, 91 AD2d 1016" (see also, Chasnov v. Chasnov, 131 A.D.2d 624, 516 N.Y.S.2d 708; Gape v......
  • Dugar v. Coughlin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • July 11, 1985
  • Cuevas v. Cuevas
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 29, 1985
    ...the factors it considered and the reasons for its decision" as required by Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(5)(g) (see Hornbeck v. Hornbeck, 99 A.D.2d 851, 472 N.Y.S.2d 456). Third, the defendant stipulated to dissolution of the marriage and joint custody of the parties' minor child. The onl......
  • Capasso v. Capasso
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • October 2, 1986
    ...reversal of the judgment and remand for further consideration (Levine v. Levine, 102 A.D.2d 799, 477 N.Y.S.2d 299; Hornbeck v. Hornbeck, 99 A.D.2d 851, 472 N.Y.S.2d 456; Wilson v. Wilson, 101 A.D.2d 536, 538-539, 476 N.Y.S.2d As limited by her main brief, the wife challenges the trial court......
  • Get Started for Free