Kalimian v. Kalimian

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: LATHAM
• Citation: Kalimian v. Kalimian, 396 N.Y.S.2d 812, 58 A.D.2d 884 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)
• Decision Date: 25 July 1977
• Parties: Jalleh KALIMIAN, Respondent, v. Michael KALIMIAN, Appellant.

Page 812

396 N.Y.S.2d 812

58 A.D.2d 884

Jalleh KALIMIAN, Respondent, v. Michael KALIMIAN, Appellant.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division Second Department.

July 25, 1977

Meyer, English, Cianciulli & Peirez, P. C., Mineola (Bernard S. Meyer and Jeffrey G. Stark, Mineola, on the brief), for appellant. Richenthal, Abrams & Moss, New York City (Arthur Richenthal, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

In a matrimonial action, defendant appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of a judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 8, 1977, as made provision with respect to alimony, child support, arrearages, counsel fees and expenses and possession of the marital premises. Judgment modified, on the law, by (1) reducing the amount of $60,000 set forth in the fifth decretal paragraph thereof to the amount of $33,800, and by reducing the amount of the weekly installments from $1,153.85 to $650, (2) reducing the amounts of $9,750 set forth in the sixth decretal paragraph thereof for the support of the children, Bonnie and Morad, to the amounts of $5,720 for the maintenance and support of each of the children, and by reducing the amounts of the weekly installments for each of the children to $110, (3) adding to the seventh decretal paragraph thereof provisions (a) conditioning the payments of medical and dental expenses of the minor children upon the prior approval of the defendant, except in the event of emergencies, and (b) that upon refusal of the defendant to approve such expenses, application may be made to the court for such approval, (4) deleting from the tenth decretal paragraph thereof the amount "$145,363.26" and substituting therefor the amount "$111,150", (5) deleting from the eleventh decretal paragraph thereof the amount "$41,914.32" and substituting therefor the amount "$37,620" and (6) reducing the amounts "$60,000" and "$74,004.12" set forth in the twelfth decretal paragraph thereof to the amounts "$45,000" and "$59,004.12", respectively. As so modified, judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Under the facts, retroactivity to November 20, 1973 was properly granted in this case based upon the defendant's dilatory and obstructive tactics and frequent changes of counsel, causing delays in the trial of the action. We find that the award of a counsel fee was excessive to the extent indicated herein and further find that the awards of alimony and child support as modified by this court, are consistent with the marital standards of living and the needs of the wife and the children. The other contentions raised by the defendant on appeal have been examined and found to be without merit.

LATHAM, J. P., and SHAPIRO and HAWKINS, JJ., concur.

SUOZZI, J., concurs in the modification of the judgment, but otherwise dissents and votes to further modify the judgment by providing that the alimony and support should commence as of the date of the commencement of the trial, with the following memorandum: I disagree with that part of the majority's determination which upholds an award of permanent alimony and child support totalling over $45,000 a year (or $870 a week) retroactive to the date of the commencement of the action and grants the plaintiff a judgment of $148,770 for arrears accumulated over the three-year...