Levine v. Levine
Decision Date | 19 November 1990 |
Citation | 167 A.D.2d 449,562 N.Y.S.2d 132 |
Parties | Karen LEVINE, Respondent-Appellant, v. Neil LEVINE, Appellant-Respondent. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Wolfson, Grossman & Austin (Leonard B. Austin, Mitchel Field, of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Silberman & Silberman (Herbert C. Silberman, Lawrence, of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
Before KUNZEMAN, J.P., and EIBER, SULLIVAN and ROSENBLATT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from (1) stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Zelman, J.), dated June 22, 1988, which, inter alia, awarded the plaintiff wife custody of the parties' two children, and directed him to pay maintenance to the wife in the sum of $75 per week, and child support in the sum of $100 per child per week, (2) stated portions of a resettled judgment of the same court, dated November 2, 1988, which, inter alia, directed him to pay certain of the wife's rent-related expenses and the cost of all medical, dental, hospitalization, and psychiatric expenses incurred by the parties' children which are not covered by his insurance, and (3) an order of the same court, dated November 23, 1988, which granted the wife's application for appellate counsel fees to the extent of awarding her $750. The plaintiff wife cross-appeals from so much of the judgment dated June 22, 1988, and the resettled judgment, dated November 2, 1988, as limited the awards of maintenance and child support, and denied her application for equitable distribution.
ORDERED that the order dated November 23, 1988, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nolfo v. Nolfo
...the Supreme Court or the Family Court for reimbursement for any extraordinary medical treatments for the children (see, Levine v. Levine, 167 A.D.2d 449, 562 N.Y.S.2d 132; Waterman v. Waterman, 160 A.D.2d 865, 554 N.Y.S.2d 298; Keehn v. Keehn, 137 A.D.2d 493, 524 N.Y.S.2d It is well establi......
-
Millay v. Millay
...was not afforded a meaningful opportunity to present evidence, even on the issue of exceptional circumstances (see, Levine v. Levine, 167 A.D.2d 449, 562 N.Y.S.2d 132; Mosesku v. Mosesku, 108 A.D.2d 795, 485 N.Y.S.2d 122). Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Rockland Co......
-
Lawrence v. Town of East Fishkill
... ... Supreme Court, Appellate Division, ... Second Department ... Nov. 19, 1990 ... Finkelstein, Levine, Gittelsohn and Tetenbaum, Newburgh (Duncan W. Clark, of counsel), for appellants ... Mead, Dore & Voute, White Plains (Marcia O ... ...