From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Evangelista v. Evangelista

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 24, 1985
111 A.D.2d 904 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

June 24, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Santagata, J.).


Judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and defendant is directed to make the aforementioned payments commencing as of September 2, 1982. Defendant's time to pay the retroactive amount of maintenance is extended until 30 days after service upon him of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry.

An order for the payment of maintenance in a matrimonial action shall be effective as of the date of the application therefor (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]; Khalily v. Khalily, 99 A.D.2d 482; Rodgers v. Rodgers, 98 A.D.2d 386). An application is deemed made upon service of the summons with maintenance identified as ancillary relief, or of a complaint containing a prayer for maintenance (Siegel, Practice Commentary, McKinney's Cons Laws of N.Y., Book 14, Domestic Relations Law C236B:19 [1984-1985 Supp Pamph]).

The summons and complaint in the instant case were served on September 2, 1982. Accordingly, Special Term erred in failing to make that date the effective date upon which defendant's obligation to pay maintenance commenced. Gibbons, J.P., Thompson, Weinstein and Lawrence, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Evangelista v. Evangelista

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 24, 1985
111 A.D.2d 904 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Evangelista v. Evangelista

Case Details

Full title:ELIZABETH EVANGELISTA, Appellant, v. AMADO R. EVANGELISTA, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 24, 1985

Citations

111 A.D.2d 904 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Zurner v. Zurner

This appeal by plaintiff followed. The law is clear that the child support provisions of a judgment entered…

Thomas v. Thomas

In view of our determination, we remit the case to the trial court for its reconsideration of the appropriate…