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
PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER (UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1)) WHILE WORKING FOR A TENANT, EVEN IF THE OWNER WAS NOT AWARE THE TENANT HIRED THE PLAINTIFF, WHERE ONLY HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A QUESTION OF FACT IS NOT RAISED (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).
LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED, EVENT NOT RELATED TO THE FORCE OF GRAVITY.
ALTHOUGH THE INSURANCE POLICY EXCLUDED WATER DAMAGE AND THE INSURED PROPERTY WAS FLOODED DURING HURRICANE SANDY, THE INSURER’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT REFUTE THE ALLEGATION THE INSURED PROPERTY WAS DAMAGED BY AN ELECTRICAL SHORT A MONTH AFTER THE STORM WHEN ELECTRICITY WAS RESTORED.
SELF-EXECUTING CONDITIONAL DISCOVERY ORDER BECAME ABSOLUTE UPON NON-COMPLIANCE; A MOTION TO VACATE, NOT AN APPEAL, IS THE PROPER PROCEDURE TO CONTEST THE ORDER ON THE GROUND OF EXCUSABLE DEFAULT; DEFENDANTS TOOK NO ACTION TO AVOID THE DEFAULT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE BY ALLEGING THE TREATMENT OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AGAINST THE WISHES OF DECEDENT AND DECEDENT’S HEALTH-CARE AGENTS PROLONGED DECEDENT’S PAIN AND SUFFERING; THE “WRONGFUL LIFE” LINE OF CASES DOES NOT APPLY (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL MISCALCULATED THE NUMBER OF DAYS OF DELAY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PEOPLE IN THE SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION, WHICH CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, CONVICTION REVERSED, INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
Case Should Not Have Been Dismissed on Forum Non Conveniens Grounds—Analytical Criteria Explained

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

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