green
Positive treatment
Issue: enumerated statutory factorsNY ↗
Issue: consideration factorsNY ↗
14.0 score
G Cite
cited 12× by 12 distinct cases, 1998–2013 ·
…as a general rule, the amount and duration of maintenance are matters committed to the sound discretion of the trial court
at p. 935
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Knope v. Knope
Although “[a]s a general rule, the amount and duration of maintenance are matters committed to the sound discretion of the trial court” (Boughton v Boughton, 239 AD2d 935, 935 [1997]), “the authority of this Court in determining issues of maintenance is as broad as that of the trial court” (Reed v Reed, 55 AD3d 1249, 1251 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Knope v. Knope
Although “[a]s a general rule, the amount and duration of maintenance are matters committed to the sound discretion of the trial court” (Boughton v Boughton, 239 AD2d 935, 935 [1997]), “the authority of this Court in determining issues of maintenance is as broad as that of the trial court” (Reed v Reed, 55 AD3d 1249, 1251 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Perry v. Perry
Although “[a]s a general rule, the amount and duration of maintenance are matters committed to the sound discretion of the trial court” (Boughton v Boughton, 239 AD2d 935, 935 [1997]; see Scala v Scala, 59 AD3d 1042, 1043 [2009]; Frost v Frost, 49 AD3d 1150, 1150-1151 [2008]), “this Court’s authority in determining issues of maintenance is as broad as that of the trial court” (Scala, 59 AD3d at 1043 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Perry v. Perry
Although “[a]s a general rule, the amount and duration of maintenance are matters committed to the sound discretion of the trial court” (Boughton v Boughton, 239 AD2d 935, 935 [1997]; see Scala v Scala, 59 AD3d 1042, 1043 [2009]; Frost v Frost, 49 AD3d 1150, 1150-1151 [2008]), “this Court’s authority in determining issues of maintenance is as broad as that of the trial court” (Scala, 59 AD3d at 1043 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ROONEY, KIMBERLY B. v. ROONEY, JOHN E.
With respect to the judgment in appeal No. 3, we reject defendant’s contention that the Referee erred in setting the term and amount of maintenance. “[T]he amount and duration of maintenance are matters committed to the sound discretion of the trial court” (Boughton v Boughton, 239 AD2d 935, 935 [1997]), based upon the court’s consideration of the factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
SALVATO, KAREN L. v. SALVATO, LARRY P.
Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding maintenance to plaintiff of $1,000 a month for a period of four years (see McCarthy v McCarthy, 57 AD3d 1481, 1481-1482 [2008]). “[T]he amount and duration of maintenance are matters committed to the sound discretion of the trial court” (Boughton v Boughton, 239 AD2d 935, 935 [1997]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McCarthy v. McCarthy
“As a general rule, the amount and duration of maintenance are matters committed to the sound discretion of the trial court” (Boughton v Boughton, 239 AD2d 935, 935 [1997]) and, contrary to defendant’s contention, we perceive no abuse of discretion with respect to the award of maintenance.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Petosa v. Petosa
“As a general rule, the amount and duration of maintenance are matters committed to the sound discretion of the trial court” (Boughton v Boughton, 239 AD2d 935, 935 [1997]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Frost v. Frost
“As a general rule, the amount and duration of maintenance are matters committed to the sound discretion of the trial court” (Boughton v Boughton, 239 AD2d 935, 935 [1997]), and we perceive no abuse of discretion here.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Smith v. Smith
“As a general rule, the amount and duration of maintenance are matters committed to the sound discretion of the trial court” (Boughton v Boughton, 239 AD2d 935, 935 [1997]; see also Shew v Shew, 193 AD2d 1142, 1143 [1993]), and we perceive no abuse of discretion in this case.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
DiFilippo v. DiFilippo
In determining questions of maintenance, however, the authority of our Court is as broad as that of the trial court (Boughton v Boughton, supra, at 935).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bennett v. Bennett
Although the determination of the amount of maintenance is “left to the sound discretion of the trial court” (Anderson v Anderson, 286 AD2d 967, 969 [2001]), our authority “is as broad as that of the trial court” (Marino v Marino, 229 AD2d 971, 972 [1996]; see Boughton v Boughton, 239 AD2d 935 [1997]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Oneida County Commissioner of Social Services, on Behalf of Shelley E. S.
v.
William S.
v.
William S.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 30, 1997.
Published
Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court properly directed respondent to contribute to the support of his minor daughter. The daughter moved out of respondent’s two-room efficiency apartment after the birth of her child and began receiving public assistance benefits. Respondent acknowledged that his living quarters were too small to accommodate his daughter and the baby. Under the circumstances, the legal obligation of respondent to support his 19-year-old daughter continued after she left his home- (see, Matter of Henry v Boyd, 99 AD2d 382, affd 65 NY2d 645; see also, Matter of Monroe County Dept. of Social Seros. [San Filippo] v San Filippo, 178 AD2d 1011, 1012; Matter of Sanders v Lavine, 59 AD2d 911). (Appeal from Order of Oneida County Family Court, Morgan, J.—Support.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Callahan and Fallon, JJ.