Former husband was not entitled to a credit toward his maintenance obligation for social security benefits received by his former wife by virtue of contributions made by the husband.  In re Schrimpf
___Defined
 The word “alimony” in former section 18 of the Divorce Act (see now this section), is synonymous with the word “maintenance” used in subsection (a) of this section.  Pierce v. Pierce
___Employment Secured
 Even though respondent had obtained employment, the court properly continued maintenance, since she did not have her own pension and would never earn as much as petitioner.  In re Connors
___Equitable
 Just as the court is without authority, after a husband’s death, to award maintenance to the wife, it is without authority, after the husband’s death, to award equitable maintenance pending appeal.  Stacke. V. Bates
___Grant Held Erroneous
 Grant of permanent alimony to wife in addition to husband’s interest in the marital residence was held erroneous.  Demos v. Demos
___In Gross
 Subsection (c) of this section does not authorize the court to award maintenance in gross after the death of the payor spouse.  Stacke v. Bates
___Job Search
 Extension of maintenance constituted an abuse of discretion in light of the court’s finding that respondent’s job searching efforts were insufficient.  In re Koenigsknecht
___Standard
 The discretionary standard for modification of maintenance found in subsection (a) of this section is essentially unchanged from its applications under the former Divorce Act.  In re McGowan
___Need of Support
 A shown need for support cannot be controlling and in itself sufficient to defeat a petition to terminate maintenance when all other factors demonstrate an ongoing, conjugal relationship to exist.  In re Frasco
___Paramour
 A divorced spouse should not be required to support the other spouse’s paramour.  Hall v. Hall

Divorce Lawyers New York