Williams v. Williams

Decision Date07 November 1984
Citation105 A.D.2d 1160,482 N.Y.S.2d 715
PartiesMaureen Virginia Cooper-Jones WILLIAMS, Respondent, v. Henry Ward WILLIAMS, Jr., Appellant.
CourtNew 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.)

DILLON, P.J., and CALLAHAN, GREEN, MOULE and SCHNEPP, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Armitage v. Armitage
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 20 December 1985
    ...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......

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