Anderson v Anderson

2008 NY Slip Op 02944 [50 AD3d 610]

April 1, 2008

Appellate Division, Second Department

As corrected through Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Daniel Anderson, Appellant, v Carolyn Anderson,Respondent.

—[*1]Sherri L. Kaplan, Jericho, N.Y., for appellant.

Robert N. Nelson, Baldwin, N.Y., for respondent.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of theSupreme Court, Nassau County (Iannacci, J.), dated April 11, 2005, which granted the defendant'smotion for partial summary judgment vacating the child support provisions of the parties'separation agreement, and (2) so much of an order of the same court, dated April 19, 2005, asawarded the defendant child support pendente lite.

Ordered that the appeals are dismissed, with costs.

The appeals from the orders must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefromterminated with the entry of the judgment of divorce on November 15, 2006 (see Matter ofAho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]; Anderson v Anderson, 50 AD3d 610 [2008]).

The order dated April 11, 2005, which vacated the child support provisions of the separationagreement, has been reviewed on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501). Thepropriety of so much of the order dated April 19, 2005, as awarded the wife pendente lite childsupport is not reviewed on the accompanying appeal from the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5501(see Samuelsen v Samuelsen, 124 AD2d 650, 652 [1986]). In any event, it is the generalrule that the proper remedy for any perceived inequity in a pendente lite award is a speedy trial, atwhich the financial circumstances of the parties can be fully explored (see Berlly v Berlly,237 AD2d 553, 553-554 [1997]; [*2]Samuelsen vSamuelsen, 124 AD2d 650, 652 [1986]; see also Prasinos v Prasinos, 283 AD2d 913,914 [2001]). Here, the trial has been completed and the judgment of divorce entered. Rivera, J.P.,Lifson, Angiolillo and Balkin, JJ., concur.