Rossman v. Rossman

Decision Date24 January 1983
Citation458 N.Y.S.2d 631,91 A.D.2d 1036
PartiesRoberta ROSSMAN, Respondent, v. George ROSSMAN, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Dominic A. Barbara, Carle Place, for appellant.

Koopersmith, Feigenbaum & Potruch, Lake Success (Bernard E. Stamler, Alexander Potruch, Kenneth Koopersmith and Michael K. Feigenbaum, Lake Success, of counsel), for respondent.



In a matrimonial action, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated July 19, 1982, as directed him to pay to the plaintiff temporary maintenance in the sum of $350 per week. The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court, dated August 24, 1982, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination.

Appeal from the order dated July 19, 1982, dismissed. That order was superseded by the order dated August 24, 1982, made upon reargument.

Order dated August 24, 1982 affirmed insofar as reviewed.

Plaintiff is awarded one bill of $50 costs and disbursements.

The parties were married on June 18, 1955 and have lived apart since October of 1980, when the plaintiff wife left the marital residence. Both children of the marriage are emancipated. Plaintiff commenced an action for divorce by service of a summons on or about April 21, 1981. Thereafter she served a verified complaint alleging adultery, abandonment, and cruel and inhuman treatment.

On June 11, 1982 plaintiff moved for temporary maintenance in the sum of $635 per week. She also sought interim counsel fees of $3,500. Special Term, inter alia, granted to the plaintiff the sum of $350 per week as temporary maintenance. Defendant subsequently moved to reargue, seeking a reduction in the award because of an unexpected decrease in his income. Special Term granted reargument but adhered to its original determination. We affirm.

Subdivision 6 of part B of section 236 of the Domestic Relations Law empowers the court to order "temporary maintenance or maintenance to meet the reasonable needs of a party to the matrimonial action in such amount as justice requires, having regard for the circumstances of the case and of the respective parties". The subdivision provides that "[i]n determining reasonable needs the court shall decide whether the party in whose favor maintenance is granted lacks sufficient property and income to provide for his or her reasonable needs and whether the other party has sufficient property or income to provide for the reasonable needs of the other." The subdivision further sets forth 10 factors to be considered by the court "[i]n determining the amount and duration of maintenance."


To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • T.H. v. G.M.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 14 Noviembre 2023
    ... ... litigation ( see Campion v. Campion , 264 A.D.2d 705 ... (2d Dept. 1999); see also Rossman v. Rossman , 91 ... A.D.2d 1036 (2d Dept. 1983)). It is meant to tide over the ... more needy party, not to determine the correct ultimate ... ...
  • Hildenbiddle v. Hildenbiddle
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 22 Abril 1985
    ...(see Milward v. Milward, 102 A.D.2d 816, 476 N.Y.S.2d 597; Belfiglio v. Belfiglio, 99 A.D.2d 462, 469 N.Y.S.2d 978; Rossman v. Rossman, 91 A.D.2d 1036, 458 N.Y.S.2d 631; Jorgensen v. Jorgensen, 86 A.D.2d 861, 447 N.Y.S.2d 318; cf. Van Ess v. Van Ess, 100 A.D.2d 848, 474 N.Y.S.2d 90). Moreov......
  • Samuelsen v. Samuelsen
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 10 Noviembre 1986
    ...order of maintenance and support is, ordinarily, a speedy trial (see, Zoda v. Zoda, 121 A.D.2d 380, 503 N.Y.S.2d 90; Rossman v. Rossman, 91 A.D.2d 1036, 458 N.Y.S.2d 631). In this case, the defendant husband was afforded a speedy trial inasmuch as the trial commenced 34 days after the date ......
  • Stern v. Stern
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 31 Diciembre 1984
    ...on other grounds 86 A.D.2d 881, 447 N.Y.S.2d 318; see, also, Van Ess v. Van Ess, 100 A.D.2d 848, 474 N.Y.S.2d 90; Rossman v. Rossman, 91 A.D.2d 1036, 1037, 458 N.Y.S.2d 631). An award of pendente lite maintenance is generally appropriate where a party has demonstrated that he or she has an ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT