TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

O'Brien v. O'Brien

Letitia J. O'Brien v. Thomas J. O'Brien

O'Brien v. O'Brien, 136 A.D.2d 531 (1988)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
January 11, 1988
Citations
136 A.D.2d 531523 N.Y.S.2d 1511988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 286

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated July 30, 1976, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Imperato, J.H.O.), entered September 17, 1986, as, upon the plaintiff wife’s motion, awarded her alimony arrears in the sum of $7,360, child support arrears in the sum of $2,980, and counsel fees in the sum of $1,500.

*532 Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The hearing court determined that the defendant husband, who concededly failed to make the court-ordered alimony payments, did not demonstrate good cause for his failure to make an application for relief from the alimony and child support provisions of the judgment of divorce prior to the accrual of the arrears (see, Domestic Relations Law § 244). The fact that the plaintiff wife was able to be self-supporting "did not automatically relieve [the husband] from alimony” (see, Cranford v Cranford, 112 AD2d 129, 130 ; Hyman v Hyman, 56 AD2d 337, 338 ), particularly since there was no testimony as to the wife’s expenses and liabilities. Further, the record does not support the husband’s claim that the wife had waived her entitlement to the accrued alimony payments.

With respect to the arrears of child support payments required to be paid to the wife, we find no merit to the defendant’s contention that he had already paid these sums by making voluntary payments directly to his daughter or to third parties on his daughter’s behalf.

Finally, the record before us does not provide a basis for modifying or eliminating the award of counsel fees. Brown, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1990: 11991: 11992: 11995: 219902026peak 1995 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Lefkow v. Lefkow188 A.D.2d 589 (1992)
  2. Mayeri v. Mayeri220 A.D.2d 647 (1995)
  3. Kerpen v. Kerpen172 A.D.2d 496 (1991)
  4. Minka v. Minka219 A.D.2d 810 (1995)
  5. Dolan v. Dolan167 A.D.2d 654 (1990)

Most recent

  1. Mayeri v. Mayeri220 A.D.2d 647 (1995)
  2. Minka v. Minka219 A.D.2d 810 (1995)
  3. Lefkow v. Lefkow188 A.D.2d 589 (1992)
  4. Kerpen v. Kerpen172 A.D.2d 496 (1991)
  5. Dolan v. Dolan167 A.D.2d 654 (1990)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Hyman v. Hyman, 56 A.D.2d 337 (1977) 17
Cranford v. Cranford, 112 A.D.2d 129 (1985) 2

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list