You are here: / / Maintenance Should Not Have Been Granted in Absence of Proof of Standard...

Maintenance Should Not Have Been Granted in Absence of Proof of Standard of Living and Need for Maintenance

The Second Department determined Supreme Court abused its discretion by awarding maintenance in the absence of evidence of the parties’ standard of living and the plaintiff’s need for maintenance:

…[T]he Supreme Court’s award of maintenance to the plaintiff was an improvident exercise of its discretion since the award was made in the absence of any evidence of the parties’ standard of living during the marriage, and in the absence of evidence that the plaintiff, who is otherwise self-supporting, needs maintenance to sustain his pre-divorce standard of living. Additionally, the defendant’s reasonable needs preclude an award of maintenance to the plaintiff. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff should not have been awarded maintenance… .  Lucere v Lucere, 2013 NY Slip Op 05801, 2nd Dept 9-11-13

 

You might also like
FAILURE TO REJECT A LATE ANSWER WITHIN 15 DAYS WAIVES LATE SERVICE AND THE DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT).
GRANDMOTHER ENTITLED TO HEARING ON WHETHER SHE HAS STANDING TO PETITION FOR VISITATION.
ALTHOUGH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE COMPLIED WITH THE STATUTE WHEN IT WAS SENT, IT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE VERSION OF THE STATUTE IN EFFECT WHEN THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE ASSESSEMENT OF RISK LEVEL POINTS WHICH WERE NOT REQUESTED BY THE PEOPLE OR THE BOARD VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).
LATE NOTIFICATION OF THE INSURER BY THE INSURED ABOUT AN ACTION AGAINST THE INSURED DOES NOT EXCUSE A LATE DISCLAIMER, TIMELINESS OF A DISCLAIMER DEPENDS ON WHEN THE INSURER FIRST LEARNED OF THE ACTION.
Plaintiff Did Not Establish It Was the Lawful Holder of the Note on the Date the Action Was Commenced
CONTRACT LAW/EVIDENCE Parol Evidence (Email) Properly Admitted to Explain Ambiguous Term in Construction Contract with a Merger Clause—Relevant Law Succinctly Explained
ALTHOUGH THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS COMMENCED IN DECEDENT’S NAME AFTER DECEDENT HAD DIED, THE ACTION WAS NOT A NULLITY AND WAS PROPERLY REVIVED WITHIN SIX MONTHS PURSUANT TO CPLR 205 (a); SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT (SECOND 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

In Personal Injury Case, Court Should Not Have Granted Mistrial When Objection... Grant of Custody to Maternal Grandparents Rather than Parent Reversed