You are here: / / Temporary Maintenance Award Not Waived by Prenuptial Agreement Waiving...
,

Temporary Maintenance Award Not Waived by Prenuptial Agreement Waiving Only the Final Award of Alimony or Maintenance

The First Department held that Supreme Court properly awarded temporary maintenance to the wife (defendant) even though the wife waived alimony and maintenance in the prenuptial agreement:

We reject plaintiff’s argument that defendant waived temporary maintenance in the parties’ prenuptial agreement. Notwithstanding that defendant waived any claim to a final award of alimony or maintenance in the prenuptial agreement, the court was entitled, in its discretion, to award pendente lite relief in the absence of an express agreement to exclude an award of temporary maintenance… . Lennox v Weberman, 2013 NY Slip Op 05766, 1st Dept 9-3-13

 

You might also like
Class Certification Properly Granted; Rent Overcharge and Attorney’s-Fees Claims Did Not Seek “Penalties” In Violation of CPLR 901
PLAINTIFF’S BREACH-OF-AN-EMPLOYMENT-CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, DESPITE THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT NEVER SIGNED IT (FIRST DEPT).
Relief Granted By Court Went Too Far Beyond Relief Requested
DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR BEFORE AND DURING THE TRAFFIC STOP DID NOT CREATE “REASONABLE SUSPICION” THE DEFENDANT WAS ARMED; THE FRISK AND SEIZURE OF SMALL PACKETS OF PCP FROM DEFENDANT’S SOCK WAS NOT JUSTIFIED; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Intent Must Exist Simultaneously with the Act/Accidental Discharge of a Firearm, Even Where the Shooter Intends to Assault the Victim, Does Not Constitute Intentional Assault/Loss of Police Officer’s Handwritten Notes Did Not Mandate Adverse Inference Jury Charge—Insufficient Showing of Prejudice
PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEY EACH SANCTIONED $5000 FOR FRIVOLOUS ACTION AND APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
Doctrine of Continuous Representation/Retainer Agreement in Estate Proceeding “Unconscionable”​
THE PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF THEIR WITNESS’S PLANS TO VACATION OUT OF THE COUNTRY, THE WITNESS’S ABSENCE WAS NOT AN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE JUSTIFYING AN EXCLUSION OF TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL STATUTE (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Death Threats Not Protected Under First Amendment; Hearsay May Be Basis of Administrative... A Contract Between a Hospital and a Security Company Was Not Invalidated by...