Majority
—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Upon consideration of plaintiffs “reasonable needs and predivorce standard of living in the context of the enumerated statutory factors * * * (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a] [1]-[11])” (Hartog v Hartog, 85 NY2d 36 , 52), we conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding plaintiff maintenance of $400 biweekly until defendant’s retirement (see, Boughton v Boughton, 239 AD2d 935 ). The court, however, should have awarded maintenance retroactive to February 13, 1995, the date of the application therefor (see, Do
Cases cited
- Hartog v. Hartog 85 NY2d 36 at 52 p. 1242
- Lester v. Lester 237 AD2d 872 at 873 p. 1243
- DiSanto v. DiSanto 198 AD2d 838 p. 1243