RSVP for NDNY Admissions Ceremony, CLE & Luncheon on 4/10/08

Dear NDNY Member:

You are cordially invited to attend an admissions ceremony and free CLE program at the U.S. District Courthouse in Syracuse on Thursday, April 10th from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The CLE topic is “Removal Jurisdiction – Making it a Federal Case” (1.5 hrs. CLE credit).

A complimentary luncheon at Pascale’s Restaurant with members of the Federal Judiciary will follow the CLE program.

Please see the invitation for additional details:

http://www.ndnyfcba.com/p/FCBA%20CLE%20Invitation%20(4.10.08).pdf

For CLE registration and lunch reservations, please RSVP by April 7th by e-mailingtmoyo@bsk.com.

Board of DirectorsNDNY Federal Court Bar Association, Inc.

Advertisements

Law.com – N.Y. Judge Rejects Ex-Wife’s Bid for Lifetime Maintenance

N.Y. Judge Rejects Ex-Wife’s Bid for Lifetime Maintenance

Vesselin MitevNew York Law JournalApril 3, 2008

Noting that Americans are living longer with fewer financial resources, a Long Island, N.Y., judge has refused to order a 59-year-old car salesman to pay lifetime maintenance to an ex-wife with health problems.

“[W]hile a non-durational maintenance award in this case might assuage the Court’s concerns for the wife’s future financial well being, it would do so at the expense of enslaving the historic wage earner to indefinite years of employment beyond any reasonable expected retirement,” Supreme Court Justice Anthony J. Falanga of Nassau County wrote in J.S. v. J.S.

Falanga found that Mr. S. has “no choice but to work full time” until he turns 65 and has the ability to work until he is 70 in order to provide for his ex-wife.

Thus, he ordered Mr. S. to pay a monthly stipend of $3,000 only for 10 years. The payments will stop should Ms. S. remarry or either party die during that period.

The case, according to attorneys familiar with the issues, is illustrative of a trend — Americans are living longer and in relatively good health while facing a diminishing income as they pass retirement age. This presents a unique challenge to courts in projecting what amount someone facing retirement should have to pay for maintenance of a former spouse.

***

Read entire article.