Dowd v. Dowd
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1DissentStein, J.
Because, in our view, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in its award of maintenance to defendant, we respectfully dissent.
“Although the court is required to consider the statutory factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a), the determination of whether to award maintenance rests soundly within the court’s discretion” (Holmes v Holmes, 25 AD3d 931, *1059932 [2006] [citations omitted]; see Smith v Smith, 8 AD3d 728, 729 [2004]; Myers v Myers, 255 AD2d 711, 716-717 [1998]). Here, Supreme Court initially noted that, in light of the long separation of the parties prior…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Myers v. MyersAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Holmes v. HolmesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- Creighton v. CreightonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
- Smith v. SmithAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- Garner v. GarnerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.