Wells v. Wells
| Decision Date | 05 June 1989 |
| Citation | 542 N.Y.S.2d 263,151 A.D.2d 474 |
| Parties | Karen E. WELLS, Respondent, v. Rodney L. WELLS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
John R. Kelligrew, White Plains, for appellant.
Gellert & Cutler, P.C., Poughkeepsie (Paul J. Goldstein, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANGANO, J.P., and THOMPSON, SULLIVAN and BALLETTA, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Hickman, J.), dated September 10, 1987, which, inter alia, after a nonjury trial, awarded the plaintiff wife title to the marital residence and directed the defendant to pay the plaintiff $180 per week in child support and $10,000 of the plaintiff's counsel fees.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
We find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that the court's equitable distribution of the marital property was not in accordance with Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(5). The court set forth all the factors it considered and the reason for its determination (see, O'Brien v. O'Brien, 66 N.Y.2d 576, 498 N.Y.S.2d 743, 489 N.E.2d 712, on remand 120 A.D.2d 656, 502 N.Y.S.2d 250) which was fully supported by the record. The plaintiff, who is custodial parent of three of the parties' four children, was properly awarded title to the marital residence as part of her equitable distribution award (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][5][d][3].
Furthermore, the award to the plaintiff of $10,000 of the $40,000 in counsel fees which she incurred was appropriate because at least that much of the fees was occasioned by the defendant's failure to comply with and his repeated attempts to modify a pendente lite support order (see, Domestic Relations Law § 237[a]; Rados v. Rados, 133 A.D.2d 536, 519 N.Y.S.2d 906; Davis v. Davis, 128 A.D.2d 470, 513 N.Y.S.2d 405).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kattan v. Kattan
...parties’ then-unemancipated child (see Domestic Relations Law § 234 ; Bauman v. Bauman, 132 A.D.3d 791, 19 N.Y.S.3d 58 ; Wells v. Wells, 151 A.D.2d 474, 542 N.Y.S.2d 263 ; Dayanoff v. Dayanoff, 118 A.D.2d 679, 500 N.Y.S.2d 31 ; see also Strohli v. Strohli, 174 A.D.3d 938, 945, 107 N.Y.S.3d ......
-
Di Santo v. Di Santo
...to award defendant title to the marital residence. That determination is amply supported by the record ( see, Wells v. Wells, 151 A.D.2d 474, 542 N.Y.S.2d 263). The court found that the parties had been married over 12 years when the action was commenced, but had been separated for over fiv......
-
Richter v. Richter
...proceedings, justified the awards of attorney's fees to the plaintiff (see, Domestic Relations Law § 237[c]; see also, Wells v. Wells, 151 A.D.2d 474, 542 N.Y.S.2d 263; Cotton v. Cotton, 147 A.D.2d 436, 537 N.Y.S.2d 557; Rados v. Rados, 133 A.D.2d 536, 519 N.Y.S.2d We have reviewed the defe......
-
Goddard v. Goddard
...Law § 237[a]; Lee v. Chan, 245 A.D.2d 270, 664 N.Y.S.2d 828; Levine v. Levine, 179 A.D.2d 625, 579 N.Y.S.2d 103; cf., Wells v. Wells, 151 A.D.2d 474, 542 N.Y.S.2d 263). The court did not err in requiring the parties to share equally in any late charges or legal fees associated with the mort......