You are here: / / PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE (PC) ORDER SETTING TEMPORARY MAINTENANCE WHICH DEVIATED...

PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE (PC) ORDER SETTING TEMPORARY MAINTENANCE WHICH DEVIATED FROM THE PRESUMPTIVE AMOUNT INVALID; UPWARD MODIFICATION PROPER.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, affirming Supreme Court, determined a preliminary conference (PC) order directing temporary maintenance of $250 per week was invalid, and an upward modification of the temporary maintenance to $7500 per month was proper. The PC ($250 per week) deviated from the presumptive award of temporary maintenance, did not specify the reasons for the deviation, and did not include the amount of temporary maintenance which would have been in accordance with Domestic Relations Law 236:

 

Because the temporary maintenance terms in the PC order deviated from the presumptive award of temporary maintenance without providing the statutorily required recitals, the terms are unenforceable … . Moreover, because the remaining terms of the PC order are intertwined with the temporary maintenance terms, the entire order is invalid … . Anonymous v Anonymous, 2016 NY Slip Op 05736, 1st Dept 8-4-16

FAMILY LAW (PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE (PC) ORDER SETTING TEMPORARY MAINTENANCE WHICH DEVIATED FROM THE PRESUMPTIVE AMOUNT INVALID; UPWARD MODIFICATION PROPER)/MAINTENANCE (FAMILY LAW, PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE (PC) ORDER SETTING TEMPORARY MAINTENANCE WHICH DEVIATED FROM THE PRESUMPTIVE AMOUNT INVALID; UPWARD MODIFICATION PROPER)/TEMPORARY MAINTENANCE (FAMILY LAW, PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE (PC) ORDER SETTING TEMPORARY MAINTENANCE WHICH DEVIATED FROM THE PRESUMPTIVE AMOUNT INVALID; UPWARD MODIFICATION PROPER)

You might also like
DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEYS HAD APPARENT AUTHORITY TO BIND DEFENDANTS TO THE OPEN-COURT STIPULATED SETTLEMENT OF $8,875,000; IN ADDITION, DEFENDANTS RATIFIED THE STIPULATION BY FAILING TO TIMELY OBJECT TO IT (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TWO BY FOUR PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER WAS DEBRIS, WHICH WOULD CONSTITUTE A VIABLE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION, OR PART OF A SAFETY BARRICADE, WHICH WOULD NOT (FIRST DEPT).
COMMUNITY GARDEN ASSOCIATION STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ADVERSE POSSESSION OF A LOT IN THE LOWER EAST SIDE OF MANHATTAN, THE PERIOD OF TIME THE LAND WAS USED BY THE ASSOCIATION BEFORE IT WAS INCORPORATED IN 2012 WAS PROPERLY TACKED ON (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 240(6) CAUSES OF ACTION, HEAVY MOTORIZED PALLET JACK SLID ON WATER ON A DESCENDING RAMP.
DEFENDANT TRIPPED OVER A PIECE OF PIPE STICKING OUT OF THE FLOOR AND FELL INTO THE UNGUARDED ELEVATOR MECHANISM; THE DEFECT WAS NOT TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT IN THIS GRAND LARCENY CASE WAS DETAINED BY STORE SECURITY GUARDS; DEFENSE COUNSEL FIRST LEARNED THE IDENTITY OF ONE OF THE STORE’S SECURITY PERSONNEL ON THE EVE OF THE HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SECURITY GUARDS WERE LICENSED TO EXERCISE POLICE POWERS OR WERE AGENTS OF THE POLICE; THEREFORE DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT TO SUBPOENA THE STORE’S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES AND OTHER EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS LEAD-PAINT EXPOSURE CASE, DISCOVERY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO DOCUMENTS CONCERNING ONLY THE APARTMENTS INFANT PLAINTIFF SPENT TIME IN, THE CONDITION OF OTHER PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING MAY BE RELEVANT TO DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE.
PLAINTIFF’S ‘DENIAL OF A FAIR TRIAL’ ACTION PURSUANT TO 42 USC 1983 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BEFORE PLAINTIFF’S CASE WAS CLOSED; THE MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT WAS PREMATURE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, EVEN IF PLAINTIFF’S ULTIMATE SUCCESS WAS UNLIKELY; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS UPON SEEING THE POLICE IN A HOUSING AUTHORITY BUILDING... QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER ZIP LINE WAS DEFECTIVE AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF KNEW...