Orenstein v. Orenstein
| Decision Date | 03 April 1968 |
| Parties | , 236 N.E.2d 638 Pauline ORENSTEIN, Appellant-Respondent, v. Irving ORENSTEIN, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 26 A.D.2d 928, 275 N.Y.S.2d 33.
Saxe, Bacon & Bolan, New York City (Roy M. Cohn, Robert S. Cohen and William H. Frappollo, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant-respondent.
Yavers, Austern & Knopp, New York City, for defendant-respondent-appellant.
Wife brought action against husband for separation, support, and counsel fees.
The Supreme Court, Trial Term, New York County, Darwin W. Telesford, J., entered a judgment awarding the wife support fo $350 per week and counsel fees and investigative expenses of $5,000, and the husband appealed.
The Appellate Division modified the judgment, on the law and the facts, to the extent of reducing the alimony to $200 per week and counsel fees to $2,000 and, as so modified, affirmed the judgment. Breitel, J.P., and Stevens, J., dissented.
The Appellate Division held that the alimony award was excessive by $150 per week and that counsel fee of $5,000 was excessive by $3,000, considering husband's annual income not exceeding $15,000, his need to maintain separate living quarters, and other circumstances.
Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals. The wife contended in the Court of Appeals that in view of refusal or inability of husband to disclose his income for the year preceding the separation, the Trial Term was justified in resorting to wife's testimony and inferences drawn therefrom in resolving issues of alimony, counsel fees, and investigative expenses, and that, at any rate, the order of the Appellate Division was unsupported by proof and should be modified by reinstating the Trial Term's award of alimony of $350 per week and by increasing the award for counsel fees and investigative expenses to $7,500. The husband contended in the Court of Appeals that the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Order affirmed without costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kover v. Kover
...excessive as to show an abuse of judicial discretion or unless an underlying question of law arises. (See Orenstein v. Orenstein, 21 N.Y.2d 892, 289 N.Y.S.2d 409, 236 N.E.2d 638; Trippe v. Trippe, 19 N.Y.2d 944, 281 N.Y.S.2d 350, 228 N.E.2d 404; Sacknoff v. Sacknoff, 7 N.Y.2d 771, 194 N.Y.S......
-
Millner v. Millner
...standard of living of the parties.' Indeed, in Orenstein v. Orenstein, 26 A.D.2d 928, 929, 275 N.Y.S.2d 33, 34, affd. 21 N.Y.2d 892, 289 N.Y.S.2d 409, 236 N.E.2d 638, the Appellate Division said that 'In the absence of special circumstances * * * a former matrimonial standard of living base......
-
Hickland v. Hickland
...to the extent that the order of the Appellate Division does so, we believe it should be modified. (Orenstein v. Orenstein, 21 N.Y.2d 892, 289 N.Y.S.2d 409, 236 N.E.2d 638; Trippe v. Trippe, 19 N.Y.2d 944, 281 N.Y.S.2d 350, 228 N.E.2d 404; Sacknoff v. Sacknoff, 7 N.Y.2d 771, 194 N.Y.S.2d 40,......
-
Kay v. Kay
...make an award based upon the wife's proof of her needs. (Orenstein v. Orenstein, 26 A.D.2d 928, 275 N.Y.S.2d 33, aff'd. 21 N.Y.2d 892, 289 N.Y.S.2d 409, 236 N.E.2d 638; Zy v. Zy, 13 N.Y.S.2d Moreover, the modifications included substantial increases in the amount of child support the husban......