Liss v. Liss
| Decision Date | 04 March 1982 |
| Citation | 87 A.D.2d 681,448 N.Y.S.2d 814 |
| Parties | Anna De Rico LISS, Respondent, v. Joseph LISS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Joseph M. Cairo, Waterford, for appellant.
Ungerman & Ackerman, Albany (F. Stanton Ackerman, Albany, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MAHONEY, P. J., and SWEENEY, KANE, MAIN and LEVINE, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered August 11, 1981 in Albany County, which awarded plaintiff temporary maintenance in the amount of $100 per week.
Plaintiff and defendant, both sexagenarians, were married on November 15, 1980 and separated in January, 1981. In this matrimonial action, plaintiff brought a motion seeking, inter alia, temporary maintenance of $200 per week and $1,500 in counsel fees. The record reveals that the parties have a joint certificate of deposit in the amount of $10,000; that plaintiff is the sole owner of the marital residence which is valued at between $30,000 and $40,000 and is unencumbered; that defendant earns a gross weekly wage of approximately $500; and that plaintiff receives approximately $200 per month in Social Security benefits. Special Term denied the application for counsel fees but awarded plaintiff temporary maintenance in the amount of $100 per week stating that the award was based on plaintiff's needs, considering her health and age, and that payments would be tax deductible for defendant. This appeal by defendant ensued.
Initially, defendant contends that Special Term failed to set forth the effect on the award of temporary maintenance of the nine factors specifically enumerated in section 236 (Part B, subd. 6, par. of the Domestic Relations Law as required by section 236 (Part B, subd. 6, par. of the Domestic Relations Law. Section 236 (Part B, subd. 6, par. provides, in pertinent part, that the court shall consider nine specific factors and any other factor deemed just and proper when it is determining "the amount and duration of maintenance". The statute does not require consideration of these factors in a decision regarding temporary alimony and to so interpret it would require us to read the additional words "temporary maintenance" into the relevant provision of the statute. This court, however, should not read words into a statute to give it a meaning not otherwise found therein (Schampier v. Office of Gen. Servs. of State of N. Y., 73 A.D.2d 1011, 424 N.Y.S.2d 57, affd., 52 N.Y.2d 746, 436...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chyrywaty v. Chyrywaty
...support is within Special Term's discretion and should not be upset absent an abuse of that discretion (see, e.g., Liss v. Liss, 87 A.D.2d 681, 682, 448 N.Y.S.2d 814; Baranyk v. Baranyk, supra Our review of the record reveals that considering the disparity in the parties' incomes, the needs......
-
Stern v. Stern
...(see Belfiglio v. Belfiglio, 99 A.D.2d 462, 469 N.Y.S.2d 978; Berley v. Berley, 97 A.D.2d 726, 727, 468 N.Y.S.2d 879; Liss v. Liss, 87 A.D.2d 681, 682, 448 N.Y.S.2d 814). A court must, however, set forth the factors it considered and the reasons underlying its determination on an applicatio......
-
Strong v. Strong
...of N.Y., Book 14, Domestic Relations Law C236B:40 at 28; see, Clancy v. Clancy, 122 A.D.2d 563, 505 N.Y.S.2d 291; Liss v. Liss, 87 A.D.2d 681, 682, 448 N.Y.S.2d 814). Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $300 and $20 per week for temporary maintenance and child support, re......
-
Catania v. Catania
...N.Y.S.2d 11; Belfiglio v. Belfiglio, 99 A.D.2d 462, 469 N.Y.S.2d 978; Berley v. Berley, 97 A.D.2d 726, 468 N.Y.S.2d 879; Liss v. Liss, 87 A.D.2d 681, 448 N.Y.S.2d 814). Special Term's decision, in which it set forth the reasons for the determination reached, complied with the statutory dire......