180 A.D.2d 488, 579 N.Y.S.2d 393
Supreme Court,
Appellate Division, First Department, New York. Margaret LASRY,
Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant, v. Eric LASRY,
Defendant-Appellant-Respondent. Feb. 11, 1992. [**393] Before MILONAS, J.P., and WALLACH, ROSS, ASCH and SMITH,
JJ. [*488] MEMORANDUM DECISION. Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis
Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered January 14, 1991 and April 26, 1991, which orders
awarded plaintiff temporary maintenance in the amount of $1,000 a week, neither
deductible to defendant nor taxable to plaintiff, and temporary child support
in the amount of $500 a week, and which, inter alia, denied defendant’s
motion for a mandatory injunction to *489 compel plaintiff to take all steps
necessary to vacate the attachment issued by a Swiss court on defendant’s
Swiss bank account, respectively, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Courts of this state generally will accord recognition to the
judgments rendered in a foreign country under the doctrine of comity absent a
showing of fraud in the procurement of the foreign judgment or unless
recognition of the judgment would offend a strong policy of New York [**394] (Greschler
v. Greschler, 51 N.Y.2d 368, 376, 434 N.Y.S.2d 194, 414 N.E.2d 694). The Swiss
court’s injunction freezing defendant Geneva’s bank account
should be left undisturbed, not only upon considerations of comity but also in
recognition of the need to preserve what is possibly a substantial marital
asset for equitable distribution. In view of defendant’s failure adequately to explain the
discrepancy between his claimed living expenses and annual income, and proof
that plaintiff, a 37-year old homemaker, has only dividend and interest income
of $14,000 a year, while defendant, a 51-year old retired investment banker,
has income of $132,000 a year, the court’s award of $1,000 a week
temporary maintenance and $500 a week child support, represents a measured “accommodation
between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of
the other spouse” (see, Shapiro v. Shapiro, 163 A.D.2d 294, 296,
557 N.Y.S.2d 154). Finally,
it was within the sound discretion of the IAS court, pursuant to IRS Temporary
Regulation (26 CFR) sect; 1-71-1T(a) to provide that the maintenance payments
be neither deductible to him nor taxable to plaintiff. |