Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003

Lilikakis v. Lilikakis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided September 8, 2003

308 A.D.2d 435; 764 N.Y.S.2d 206

Cases that cite this one

17 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Vela v. Land-Wheatley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Abizadeh v. Abizadeh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Weitzner v. Weitzner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Bouie v. Joseph (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Ashmore v. Ashmore (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Greisman v. Greisman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Greisman v. Greisman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Mosso v. Mosso (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Duffy v. Duffy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
DiFiore v. DiFiore (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
DiFiore v. DiFiore (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Wesche v. Wesche (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Rohme v. Burns (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Sena v. Sena (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Barnett v. Ruotolo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Genender v. Genender (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Kristy Helen T. v. Richard F.G. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)

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 plaintiff husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Garson, J.), dated January 29, 2002, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, imputed income to him for the purpose of calculating his child support obligation, awarded the defendant wife maintenance in the sum of $300 per week for a period of one year, and granted the defendant’s application for an award of an attorney’s fee, and the defendant wife cross-appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of the same judgment as awarded her only $185 per week in child support, and only $300 per week in maintenance for a period of one year.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

*436Contrary to the husband’s contention, the Supreme Court properly imputed income to him (see Rohrs v Rohrs, 297 AD2d 317 [2002]). “A court is not bound by a party’s account of his or her own finances, and where a party’s account is not believable, the court is justified in finding a true or potential income higher than that claimed” (Matter of Thomas v DeFalco, 270 AD2d 277, 278 [2000]; see also Rohrs v Rohrs, supra). Further, the award of an attorney’s fee to the wife was proper (see Merzon v Merzon, 210 AD2d 462 [1994]).

Contrary to the wife’s contention, the amount and the duration of the award of maintenance were proper (see DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879 [1987]; Calvaruso v Calvaruso, 276 AD2d 578 [2000]; Morrissey v Morrissey, 259 AD2d 472 [1999]).

The parties’ remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.