Williams v. Williams
Decision Date | 07 November 1984 |
Citation | 105 A.D.2d 1160,482 N.Y.S.2d 715 |
Parties | Maureen Virginia Cooper-Jones WILLIAMS, Respondent, v. Henry Ward WILLIAMS, Jr., Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Osborn, Considine, Reed, Van De Vate & Burke by John Osborn, Rochester, for appellant. Ange, Birzon, Gordon, Rosa & Zakia by Paul Birzon, Buffalo, for respondent.
Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Defendant husband appeals from so much of an order at Special Term as temporarily determined child support and maintenance, pending divorce proceedings. In affirming, we note that courts have repeatedly held that the remedy for any claimed inequity in awards of temporary alimony, child support or maintenance is a speedy trial where the respective finances of the parties can be ascertained and a permanent award based on the evidence may be made (Cloutier v. Cloutier, 94 A.D.2d 974, 463 N.Y.S.2d 739; Woram v. Gilliam, 78 A.D.2d 796, 433 N.Y.S.2d 4; Sterlace v. Sterlace, 63 A.D.2d 450, 406 N.Y.S.2d 934; Vesper v. Vesper, 46 A.D.2d 729, 359 N.Y.S.2d 1009). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Scudder, J.--Modify Temporary Support Order.)
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Armitage v. Armitage
...respective finances of the parties can be properly ascertained and a permanent award may be made on the evidence (Williams v. Williams, 105 A.D.2d 1160, 482 N.Y.S.2d 715; Pleto v. Pleto, 98 A.D.2d 994, 470 N.Y.S.2d 188). While not deviating from this strong policy, it was improvident to dir......