AMSELLEM v. AMSELLEM

ResetAA Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Sofia AMSELLEM, respondent, v. Jacques AMSELLEM, appellant.

-- February 22, 2005

FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, and PETER B. SKELOS, JJ. Samuelson Hause & Samuelson, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Alisa E. Epstein and Elliot D. Samuelson of counsel), for appellant. Boris Kogan & Associates, New York, N.Y. (Freda Khan of counsel), for respondent.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ross, J.), entered August 14, 2003, as directed him to pay the plaintiff $744.42 in weekly child support, retroactive to the date of service of the pleadings, to obtain health and life insurance for the benefit of the parties' five children, and to pay the sum of $10,000 to the plaintiff pursuant to the parties' prenuptial agreement.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

 Where the defendant presented insufficient evidence to determine his gross income, the Supreme Court properly awarded child support based on the “needs” and “standard of living” of the children (Domestic Relations Law § 240[1-b][k];  Kay v. Kay, 37 N.Y.2d 632, 636, 376 N.Y.S.2d 443, 339 N.E.2d 143;   Acosta v. Acosta, 301 A.D.2d 467, 468, 753 N.Y.S.2d 506;  Mayer v. Mayer, 291 A.D.2d 384, 385, 736 N.Y.S.2d 887).   The child support award was directed to be retroactive to the date of the initial service of the pleadings based, in part, on the inadequacy of the pendente lite award (see Mayer v. Mayer, supra;  Nolfo v. Nolfo, 188 A.D.2d 451, 453, 590 N.Y.S.2d 902).   The order of the Supreme Court superseded the pendente lite order of the Family Court (see Family Court Act § 462;  Matter of Russo v. Rizzo, 96 Misc.2d 485, 488, 409 N.Y.S.2d 101).

 The Supreme Court was authorized by statute to direct that health and life insurance be maintained for the benefit of the children (see Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][8][a];  see also Mayer v. Mayer, supra;  Matter of Ciccone v. Ciccone, 287 A.D.2d 563, 731 N.Y.S.2d 489).

The Supreme Court properly directed payment of $10,000 to the plaintiff pursuant to the parties' prenuptial agreement (see Rubin v. Rubin, 262 A.D.2d 390, 391, 690 N.Y.S.2d 742).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

FindLaw Career Center


      Post a Job  |  View More Jobs

    View More