Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

S.A. v. L.A.

Supreme Court, Westchester County

December 16, 2013

S.A., Plaintiff,
v.
L.A., Defendant

Andrew J. Spinell, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff

Fredman, Baken & Kosan, LLP Attorneys for Defendant

HON. LAWRENCE H. ECKER, J.S.C.

The following papers numbered 1 to 19 were considered on defendant's motion for pendente lite maintenance, child support, and counsel fees brought by Order to Show Cause and plaintiff's cross-motion for interim counsel fees:

PAPERS NUMBERED

Defendant's Order to Show Cause, Affidavit, Affirmation, Exhibits A - G1 - 10
Plaintiff's Affidavit in Reply (Opposition), Exhibits A - D11 - 15
Defendant's Reply Affidavit and Reply Affirmation16 - 17 [1]
Correspondence from defendant's counsel, dated December 12, 201318
Correspondence (e-mail) from plaintiff's counsel, dated December 13, 2013 19

Upon the foregoing papers, the Decision and Order of the court is as follows:

This pendente lite application for spousal maintenance raises an issue of apparent first impression as to whether the present income rule applicable in child support proceedings may be similarly applied in determining spousal maintenance.

By Order to Show Cause issued May 10, 2013, defendant L. A. seeks (1) interim support and maintenance from plaintiff S. A. in the amount of $17, 000 per month and payment of all expenses related to the maintenance of the marital residence; (2) interim counsel fees of $35, 000; and (3) such other and further relief as to the court may seem just and proper. This motion was first returnable of June 24, 2013, and has been adjourned, by consent, of the parties. The purpose of the adjournments was to allow the time necessary for the parties' neutral evaluator, Steven Kaplan, CPA, to compile data and provide an analysis (hereinafter "the Kaplan report") as to how defendant's prior earnings have been spent. By e-mail, dated November 15, 2013, the court advised the parties that if the Kaplan report was not received by November 22nd, this motion would be decided in its absence. The case is scheduled for appearances on December 11, 2013.

Background

The parties were married in 1987 and separated in 2009. They have one child, age 26. Plaintiff is 56 years old and defendant is 64 years old. Plaintiff is residing in an apartment in New York City while defendant continues to reside in the marital residence in Westchester County, New York. Plaintiff is employed in the financial services industry and has been the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.