| McLeod v McLeod |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03604 [50 AD3d 979] |
| April 22, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Christopher McLeod, Respondent, v Dorothea McLeod,Appellant. |
—[*1] Montalbano, Condon & Frank, P.C., New City, N.Y. (Martin Butcher of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the wife appeals, as limited by her brief, fromstated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Berliner, J.), dated June 7,2007, which, inter alia, denied those branches of her motion which were for pendente litemaintenance and an award of an attorney's fee.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The purpose of a pendente lite award is to "tide over the more needy party, not to determinethe correct ultimate distribution" (Iannone v Iannone, 31 AD3d 713, 714 [2006] [internal quotationmarks omitted]; Jordan v Jordan, 2AD3d 687, 688 [2003]; see Swicklev Swickle, 47 AD3d 704 [2008]; Horowitz v Horowitz, 237 AD2d 490 [1997];Roach v Roach, 193 AD2d 660 [1993]). Moreover, "perceived inequities in pendente liteorders are best addressed via a speedy trial at which the parties' economic circumstances may bethoroughly explored" (DeVerna vDeVerna, 4 AD3d 323, 324 [2004] [internal quotation marks omitted]; Campanaro vCampanaro, 292 AD2d 330, 331 [2002]; see Gorman v Gorman, 286 AD2d 475, 476[2001]; Aliano v Aliano, 285 AD2d 522 [2001]).
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the Supreme Court properly considered the relativefinancial status of the parties and their prior agreements, and did not improvidently exercise itsdiscretion (see Wolf v Wolf, 291 AD2d 491 [2002]). Nor did the court err in denying thedefendant's application for an award of an attorney's fee at this juncture (see 22 NYCRR202.16 [k] [2]; Bertone v Bertone,15 AD3d 326 [2005]; Matter ofFischer-Holland v Walker, 12 AD3d 671 [2004]).[*2]
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.Prudenti, P.J., Fisher, Miller and Balkin, JJ., concur.