Occasionally, the Appellate Division, Second Department, speaks with illuminating clarity. In Palydowycz v. Palydowycz (NYLJ, April 14), it did just that. In doing so, it had to overturn the contrary precedent established in 2010 by an appellate panel composed of its very own members. It also abandoned a fundamentally logical and commonsensical rule of law that it had embraced for the prior six years.
Significant to the divorcing business owners out there, their maintenance payments under Payldowycz are likely to be far greater. To the maintenance payee counterpart, Palydowycz is a cause for celebration.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
