| Quarty v Quarty |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04897 [74 AD3d 1516] |
| June 10, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| Tanya J. Quarty, Appellant, v Kenneth A. Quarty,Respondent. |
—[*1] Konstanty Law Office, Oneonta (James E. Konstanty of counsel), for respondent.
Cardona, P.J. Appeal from that part of an order of the Supreme Court (Coccoma, J.), enteredJune 25, 2009 in Otsego County, which granted defendant's cross motion for certain pendentelite relief.
Plaintiff (hereinafter the wife) and defendant (hereinafter the husband) were married in 2000and are the parents of one child. In 2009, each party commenced divorce actions which weresubsequently consolidated. As is relevant to this appeal, following the wife's motion by order toshow cause for certain temporary relief, the husband cross-moved seeking, among other things,temporary maintenance. After submission of the parties' amended net worth statements and thepast three years of tax returns, Supreme Court directed the wife to pay $375 per week (or $750biweekly)[FN*]and this appeal by the wife ensued.
Initially, we note that because a speedy trial is the most appropriate remedy for any claimedinequity (see Colley v Colley, 200 AD2d 839, 840 [1994]), this Court generally will notmodify pendente lite awards unless the ordered payments prevent the payor spouse from meetinghis or her own financial obligations or where justice otherwise requires (see Newkirk vNewkirk, [*2]194 AD2d 842 [1993]). Notably, "[t]his[C]ourt's authority is as broad as that of the Supreme Court, and it may substitute a discretionarydetermination for that of the Supreme Court" (Wagner v Wagner, 175 AD2d 391, 392[1991]). When making a pendente lite award a court must consider the respective financialconditions of the parties and the reasonable needs of the party seeking support pending trial(see Sedlack v Sedlack, 298 AD2d 691, 692 [2002]; Fox v Fox, 290 AD2d 749,750 [2002]; Wagner v Wagner, 175 AD2d at 392).
A review of the husband's claimed net worth statement clearly demonstrates that he is infinancial need of assistance inasmuch as his permanent disability payments of $880 monthly arenot sufficient to enable him to meet the basic necessities for rent, utilities, food, and othermiscellaneous expenses. The wife earns substantially more income, totaling approximately$3,800 a month, in her employment as a traveling nurse practitioner. Nevertheless, theinformation set forth in her net worth statement evinces that her monthly income is exceeded byher monthly expenses, which include two mortgages on the marital residence and student loans(which account for more than half of her monthly income), as well as household maintenance,credit card debts, insurance, and expenses in relation to the physical custody of the parties' childand as sole provider for her other child. Even accepting the husband's contention that the wife'smonthly expenses are overstated by $1,130, the wife would still be prevented from meeting herown financial obligations in light of the temporary maintenance obligation imposed by SupremeCourt. Under these circumstances, considering the financial needs of the husband, the financialconstraints on the wife, as well as the net worth statements submitted by the parties and theirrespective challenges thereto, we deem it appropriate to reduce the temporary maintenanceaward to $500 a month pending an ultimate determination made at trial.
Spain, Stein, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is modified, on thefacts, without costs, by reducing plaintiff's payment of temporary maintenance to $500 a month,and, as so modified, affirmed.
Footnote *: This Court granted the wife'smotion to stay the enforcement of that order on the condition that she continue to pay $885 permonth in temporary maintenance pending the outcome of this appeal.