Perry v. Perry
| Decision Date | 15 October 1981 |
| Citation | 84 A.D.2d 612,444 N.Y.S.2d 490 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Elizabeth H. PERRY, Respondent, v. Robert R. PERRY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
David B. Alford, Middleburg, for appellant.
Gerard R. Gemmette, Schenectady, for respondent.
Before MAHONEY, P. J., and SWEENEY, CASEY, YESAWICH and WEISS, JJ.
Appeal from so much of an order of the Family Court of Schoharie County entered September 19, 1980, as awarded the petitioner alimony in the amount of $150 per week and made such alimony payments binding upon respondent's estate.
By decree dated March 26, 1980, petitioner divorced the respondent on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment. The decree provided that all matters relating to alimony and custody be referred to the Family Court. Of the four children of the marriage only the youngest is unemancipated, and he resides with respondent and respondent's new wife and her three infant children of a prior marriage, in the marital residence. Therefore, custody is not an issue.
Following a hearing in Family Court, pursuant to the referral of alimony by the decree of divorce, that court awarded petitioner $150 per week and made the payments required thereby binding on the respondent's estate. This appeal is limited to those two provisions of the order.
The parties were married September 5, 1953. Although petitioner had a Bachelor of Arts Degree in English, she is not a licensed teacher and worked for the first two years of the marriage as a saleslady in a bookstore while respondent was attending Harvard Business School. Thereafter, petitioner remained at home raising the children until 1978, when she worked at menial tasks receiving minimum wage. She is presently 53 years old. Her earning capacity does not exceed $5,000 per annum.
Respondent, a graduate of the Harvard Business School, is the president and major stockholder of Mohawk Sintered Alloys, Inc. and controls its board of directors. In 1979, he earned $34,000 and in 1980 $30,000, against which he contends that he has to repay a $5,000 advance. Additionally, he is reimbursed for travel and entertainment expenses. His new wife was earning $130 per week working for the same corporation, and additionally was receiving $292.50 per month child support from her ex-husband.
Based on these factors made relevant on the issue of support by section 236 of the Domestic Relations Law, the award of $150 a week to petitioner was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chaney v. Chaney
...Flicker v. Chenitz, 55 N.J.Super. 273, 150 A.2d 688 (1959); Modell v. Modell, 23 N.J.Super. 60, 92 A.2d 505 (1952); Perry v. Perry, 84 App.Div.2d 612, 444 N.Y.S.2d 490 (1981); Ehrler v. Ehrler, 69 Misc.2d 234, 328 N.Y.S.2d 728 (Sup.Ct.1972); White v. White, 48 Ohio App.2d 72, 355 N.E.2d 816......
-
Fisher v. Fisher
... ... Prasad, 80 A.D.2d 828, 436 N.Y.S.2d 348; Perry v. Perry, 79 A.D.2d 851, 444 N.Y.S.2d 490). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from ... With respect to the ... ...
-
Estate of Benitez, Matter of
...death * * * " (Cohen v. Cronin, 39 N.Y.2d 42, 45, 382 N.Y.S.2d 724, 346 N.E.2d 524 [citations omitted]; see, Matter of Perry v. Perry, 84 A.D.2d 612, 444 N.Y.S.2d 490. In the absence of such an agreement, the claimant has the burden of proving "that the parties actually intended to extend t......