Peters v. Peters
Decision Date | 16 April 1984 |
Citation | 474 N.Y.S.2d 785,100 A.D.2d 900 |
Parties | Virginia PETERS, Appellant, v. Michael PETERS, Respondent. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Dikman, Dikman & Botter, Jamaica (Michael Dikman, Jamaica, of counsel), for appellant.
Berke & Berke, New York City (Jeffrey R. Berke, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Before TITONE, J.P., and MANGANO, THOMPSON and EIBER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a divorce action, plaintiff wife appeals from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated November 10, 1983, which, inter alia, (1) directed defendant husband to pay to plaintiff the sum of $200 per week temporary maintenance and $50 per week per child ($100 per week) temporary child support; (2) provided unsupervised visitation rights for defendant; and (3) directed that neither party harass, molest or annoy the other.
Order modified, on the law and the facts, by (1) increasing the award of temporary child support to $150 per week for each child ($300 per week), (2) directing that support payments be made retroactive to September 22, 1983, the date the application for support was made, (3) directing that medical and hospital insurance be maintained by the defendant for the benefit of the plaintiff and the children, and (4) deleting the third and fourth decretal paragraphs, and substituting therefor the following:
As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
"Although appeals from orders awarding temporary maintenance and child support are not to be encouraged and a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sayer v. Sayer
...N.Y.S.2d 150; Bennett v. Bennett, 105 A.D.2d 1047, 483 N.Y.S.2d 485; Pleto v. Pleto, 98 A.D.2d 994, 470 N.Y.S.2d 188; Peters v. Peters, 100 A.D.2d 900, 474 N.Y.S.2d 785; Blasco v. Blasco, 99 A.D.2d 747, 471 N.Y.S.2d 660) and application of this principle is particularly appropriate in this ......
- Parsa v. State
-
Bagner v. Bagner
...vacated (see, Kurppe v. Kurppe, 147 A.D.2d 533, 537 N.Y.S.2d 612; Waldeck v. Waldeck, 138 A.D.2d 373, 525 N.Y.S.2d 656; Peters v. Peters, 100 A.D.2d 900, 474 N.Y.S.2d 785). We have considered the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without ...
-
Fakiris v. Fakiris
...or assaulted the plaintiff, the court improperly granted the plaintiff's application for an order of protection (see, Peters v. Peters, 100 A.D.2d 900, 474 N.Y.S.2d 785). Finally, we find that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in restraining all transfers on marital p......