Summary
The Appellate Division, First Department, reviewed an order concerning post-divorce spousal maintenance and counsel fees. The court affirmed the denial of spousal maintenance but vacated the $5,500 counsel-fee award because the lower court did not satisfy the written-decision requirements of 22 NYCRR 130-1.2.
Holdings
- Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in deviating from the statutory maintenance guidelines and determining that the husband was not entitled to post-divorce maintenance.
- The $5,500 counsel-fee award had to be vacated because Supreme Court failed to comply with 22 NYCRR 130-1.2's requirement that a written decision identify the conduct supporting the award, explain why the conduct was frivolous, and explain why the amount awarded was appropriate.
Questions Presented
- Whether Supreme Court abused its discretion by deviating from the statutory maintenance guidelines and denying the husband post-divorce spousal maintenance.
- Whether Supreme Court properly considered the factors required by Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(6) in denying maintenance.
- Whether Supreme Court's counsel-fee award could stand when the court failed to comply with the written-decision requirements of 22 NYCRR 130-1.2.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (6)
- Van Boxtel v. Van Boxtel, 233 A.D.3d 463, 463 (1st Dep't 2024)(followed)
- Rennock v. Rennock, 203 A.D.3d 675 (1st Dep't 2022)(followed)
- Warshaw v. Warshaw, 173 A.D.3d 582, 583 (1st Dep't 2019)(followed)
- Fishman v. Fishman, 244 A.D.3d 526, 527-528 (1st Dep't 2025)(followed)
- Matter of Anthony L. v. Bernadette R., 193 A.D.3d 510, 511 (1st Dep't 2021)(followed)
- Gordon Group Invs., LLC v. Kugler, 127 A.D.3d 592, 595 (1st Dep't 2015)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…