| Matter of Nisita v Nisita |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 01284 |
| Decided on February 15, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on February 15, 2011
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
RUTH C. BALKIN
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
2010-06286
(Docket No. F-8433-09)
v
Maureen Nisita, respondent.
Grobe and Wenz, L.P., Stony Brook, N.Y. (Marilyn J. Wenz of
counsel), for appellant.
Maureen Nisita, Farmingdale, N.Y., respondent pro se.
DECISION & ORDER
In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the husband appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Hoffman, J.), dated May 27, 2010, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Fields, S.M.), dated October 23, 2009, which, after a hearing, directed the wife to pay him the sum of only $40 per week in spousal support.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Pursuant to Family Court Act § 412, "[a] married person is chargeable with the support of his or her spouse and, if possessed of sufficient means or able to earn such means, may be required to pay for his or her support a fair and reasonable sum, as the court may determine, having due regard to the circumstances of the respective parties." This requires "a delicate balancing of each party's needs and means" (Matter of Shreffler v Shreffler, 283 AD2d 679, 680; see Matter of Mastrogiacomo v Mastrogiacomo, 149 AD2d 708, 709). Thus, the determination of a wife's maintenance obligation rests on the particular circumstances of the case, involving a balancing of factors such as her financial means, her need to have money on which to live after payments are made, the duration of the marriage, and the husband's ability to support himself (see Matter of Christian v Christian, 5 AD3d 765). Under the circumstances presented here, we find no basis to disturb the Support Magistrate's determination with respect to spousal support.
The husband's contention regarding the issue of counsel fees is not properly before us.
MASTRO, J.P., BALKIN, LEVENTHAL and MILLER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan[*2]
Clerk of the Court