Summer v. Summer
| Decision Date | 13 June 1995 |
| Citation | 630 N.Y.S.2d 970,85 N.Y.2d 1014,654 N.E.2d 1218 |
| Parties | , 654 N.E.2d 1218 Pepi S. SUMMER, Appellant, v. Donald L. SUMMER, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, without costs, by reinstating that portion of Supreme Court's judgment that awarded plaintiff-wife lifetime maintenance and, as so modified, affirmed.
The Appellate Division's reliance on Hartog v. Hartog, 194 A.D.2d 286, 295, 605 N.Y.S.2d 749, mod 85 N.Y.2d 36, 623 N.Y.S.2d 537, 647 N.E.2d 749 and Harmon v. Harmon, 173 A.D.2d 98, 108, 578 N.Y.S.2d 897 for its award of durational maintenance to the wife based on her ability to become self-supporting fails in the light of this Court's recent modification of Hartog, 85 N.Y.2d 36, 623 N.Y.S.2d 537, 647 N.E.2d 749, supra. We held that Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(6)(a) requires the court to consider the marital standard of living in making maintenance awards, among other factors (85 N.Y.2d, at 51-52, 623 N.Y.S.2d 537, 647 N.E.2d 749, supra ). Although there is no automatic entitlement to lifetime maintenance, the Appellate Division failed entirely to consider the factor of the parties' marital standard of living. Thus, we modify that Court's order with respect to the duration of maintenance.
Because Supreme Court's determination that the wife is incapable of becoming self-supporting at a level roughly commensurate with the marital standard of living more nearly comports with the weight of the evidence, we reinstate its judgment insofar as it awarded the wife permanent maintenance.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order modified, without costs, in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
D.D. v. A.D.
...second necessary inquiry is a determination of what standard of living her current income can support. See Summer v. Summer, 85 N.Y.2d 1014, 630 N.Y.S.2d 970, 654 N.E.2d 1218 (1995) ; See also, Bean v. Bean, 53 A.D.3d 718, 860 N.Y.S.2d 683(3rd Dept.2008). Wife credibly testified that the pa......
-
C.G. v. R.G.
...pre-divorce standard of living, their disparity in income and movant spouse's lack of future earning potential. See Summer v. Summer, 85 N.Y.2d 1014, 630 N.Y.S.2d 970, 654 N.E.2d 1218 (1995) ; Marino v. Marino, 52 A.D.3d 585, 860 N.Y.S.2d 170 (2d Dep't 2008).The parties were married in Marc......
-
Cohen v. Cohen
...that regard. Thus, taking into consideration the statutory factors, including the parties' extravagant lifestyle ( see Summer v. Summer, 85 N.Y.2d 1014, 630 N.Y.S.2d 970, 654 N.E.2d 1218 [1995]; Costa v. Costa, 46 A.D.3d 495, 497, 849 N.Y.S.2d 204 [1st Dept.2007] ), defendant's dependence o......
-
Tuchman v. Tuchman
...the sum of $12,000 per month thereafter until the death of either party or the plaintiff's remarriage (see Summer v. Summer, 85 N.Y.2d 1014, 1016, 630 N.Y.S.2d 970, 654 N.E.2d 1218 ). In computing child support, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion by imputing to the pla......