JAY OSHA, plf-res, v. OLUROTIMI OSHA, def-ap

8825. JAY OSHA, plf-res, v. OLUROTIMI OSHA, def-ap — Brian D. Perskin, Brooklyn, for ap — Anne Peyton Bryant, New York, for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen Gesmer, J.), entered July 9, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant husband's motion for pendente lite relief to the extent of awarding him $500 per month in temporary maintenance for a period of six months, with retroactive temporary maintenance of $50 per month, and directing plaintiff wife to pay interim counsel fees of $10,000 directly to defendant's attorney, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

8825. JAY OSHA, plf-res, v. OLUROTIMI OSHA, def-ap — Brian D. Perskin, Brooklyn, for ap — Anne Peyton Bryant, New York, for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen Gesmer, J.), entered July 9, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant husband’s motion for pendente lite relief to the extent of awarding him $500 per month in temporary maintenance for a period of six months, with retroactive temporary maintenance of $50 per month, and directing plaintiff wife to pay interim counsel fees of $10,000 directly to defendant’s attorney, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is no basis for disturbing the court’s award of temporary maintenance. In calculating the award, the court correctly applied the formula set forth in Domestic Relations Law §236(B)(5-a)(c)(1) (see Khaira v. Khaira, 93 AD3d 194, 197 [1st Dept 2012]). The court considered numerous statutory factors and found that the statutory presumptive or guideline amount of temporary maintenance of $1,959.86 per month was “unjust or inappropriate” (Domestic Relations Law §236[B][5-a][e][1]). The court set forth the amount of the unadjusted presumptive award, the factors it considered, and the reasons that it adjusted the presumptive award (§236[B][5-a][e][2]). The court providently exercised its discretion in imputing gross annual income to defendant in the amount of $90,000, given defendant’s past work experience and educational background (see Hickland v. Hickland, 39 NY2d 1, 5 [1976], cert denied 429 US 941 [1976]).

JAY OSHA, plf-res, v. OLUROTIMI OSHA, def-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal