Viscardi v. Viscardi
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Sogoloff v. Sogoloff (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Sogoloff v. Sogoloff (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Morales v. Inzerra (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Morales v. Inzerra (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Mongelli v. Mongelli (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Embury v. Embury (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Chamberlain v. Chamberlain (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Ahmed v. Zamor (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Maraño, J.), entered December 19, 2001, as directed him to pay maintenance to the plaintiff wife in the amount of $2,000 per month for 60 months and $1,000 per month for an additional 72 months, and to maintain medical insurance for the benefit of the plaintiff wife.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
“In determining a party’s maintenance or child support obligation, a court need not rely upon the party’s own account of his or her finances, but may impute income based upon the party’s past income or demonstrated earning potential” (Brown v Brown, 239 AD2d 535 [1997]; see Kay v Kay, 37 NY2d 632 [1975]; Rocanello v Rocanello, 254 AD2d 269 [1998]). Here, the evidence established that the plaintiff wife had not worked outside the home during much of the marriage and had obtained employment as an office coordinator after the defendant husband left the marital residence. Although the defendant claimed to be unemployed, the Supreme Court did not credit his testimony that he made a good faith effort to obtain employment commensurate with his qualifications and work
The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Feuerstein, J.P., Smith, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.