From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Knight v. Knight

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 27, 1996
231 A.D.2d 847 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

September 27 1996.

Order unanimously affirmed with costs.

Before: Present — Green, J.P., Lawton, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ.


"Questions of maintenance are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court ( see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6]; Majauskas v Majauskas, 61 NY2d 481, 494; Pacifico v Pacifico, 101 AD2d 709, 710)" ( Torgersen v Torgersen, 188 AD2d 1023, 1024, lv denied 81 NY2d 709). We reject the contention of defendant that Supreme Court abused its discretion in determining that he is not entitled to maintenance. The record supports the court's determination that defendant, despite his sporadic employment during the last several years of the marriage, has sufficient property and employment skills to provide for his reasonable needs ( see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Gilbert, J. — Maintenance.)


Summaries of

Knight v. Knight

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 27, 1996
231 A.D.2d 847 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Knight v. Knight

Case Details

Full title:MARY ELLEN KNIGHT, Respondent, v. ARTHUR KNIGHT, Appellant

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

Date published: Sep 27, 1996

Citations

231 A.D.2d 847 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
648 N.Y.S.2d 415

Citing Cases

Nielsen v. Nielsen

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the…