Woram v. Gilliam
| Decision Date | 06 November 1980 |
| Citation | 78 A.D.2d 796,433 N.Y.S.2d 4 |
| Parties | Michael G. WORAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anna Catherine GILLIAM, Defendant-Respondent. Anna Catherine Gilliam WORAM, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Michael G. WORAM, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
B. P. Josephs, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.
K. B. Becker, New York City, for defendant-respondent.
Before KUPFERMAN, J. P., and FEIN, SANDLER, SULLIVAN and BLOOM, JJ.
Order of the Supreme Court, New York County entered July 10, 1980, granting defendant temporary alimony in the sum of $120 per week, and granting and denying other relief, affirmed, so far as appealed from, without costs.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County which is not contained in the Record on Appeal and which denied reargument of the order entered July 1, 1980 dismissed as non-appealable, without costs.
Plaintiff husband in this consolidated action for divorce appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court as granted the defendant wife alimony in the sum of $120 per week. A temporary award is bottomed upon conflicting affidavits, ofttimes based upon differing versions of the finances of the parties and the standard of living enjoyed by them during the life of the marriage. As we have noted on numerous occasions, the remedy for this sometimes unsatisfactory award is a speedy trial where the facts may be examined into in far greater detail and where a more accurate appraisal of the situation of the parties may be obtained (Morrison v. Morrison, 64 A.D.2d 597, 407 N.Y.S.2d 157; Moss v. Moss, 63 A.D.2d 896, 405 N.Y.S.2d 722; Macken v. Macken, 63 A.D.2d 874, 405 N.Y.S.2d 467).
Plaintiff is a nuclear engineer with earnings of approximately $37,000 per year. Out of this sum he is compelled to pay alimony of $50 per week to his first wife plus child support for a child of that marriage. Defendant is a graduate in podiatry presently serving a residency in podiatric surgery at a Philadelphia hospital where she earns $100 per week. At the argument we were informed that the matter will be reached for pretrial conference within the next week or so and should be tried in regular order within a month thereafter. Accordingly, we see no useful purpose to be served by a change of the temporary award. We note, however, that, in so concluding, we express no opinion as to the propriety of a permanent award after trial or to the amount or duration thereof...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sayer v. Sayer
...may be obtained. (Getson v. Getson, 91 A.D.2d 540, 457 N.Y.S.2d 12; Braga v. Braga, 82 A.D.2d 727, 439 N.Y.S.2d 381; Woram v. Gilliam, 78 A.D.2d 796, 433 N.Y.S.2d 4; Rappeport v. Rappeport, 46 A.D.2d 756, 360 N.Y.S.2d 694.) That is particularly so here where the parties have an eight year o......
-
Chyrywaty v. Chyrywaty
...of the facts in far greater detail and much more accurately than on a motion for temporary relief (see, e.g., Woram v. Gilliam, 78 A.D.2d 796, 433 N.Y.S.2d 796). We further note that the award of temporary maintenance and child support is within Special Term's discretion and should not be u......
-
Stone v. Stone
...and more detailed examination of the facts for the purposes of making an award, if any, of permanent maintenance (see, Woram v. Gilliam, 78 A.D.2d 796, 433 N.Y.S.2d 4). We find that, contrary to the husband's contention, it was not indisputably shown that the wife committed perjury in respe......
-
Waterston v. Zuckerman
...631; Marcus v. Marcus, 91 A.D.2d 991, 458 N.Y.S.2d 199; Jorgensen v. Jorgensen, 86 A.D.2d 861, 447 N.Y.S.2d 318; Woram v. Gilliam, 78 A.D.2d 796, 433 N.Y.S.2d 4; Hyman v. Hyman, 56 A.D.2d 337, 338, 392 N.Y.S.2d THOMPSON, J.P., and BROWN, EIBER and SPATT, JJ., concur. ...