| Gillings v Gillings |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 08452 [56 AD3d 424] |
| November 5, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Connie Gillings, Appellant, v Robert Gillings,Respondent. |
—[*1] Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jennifer Lombardo of counsel),for respondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief,from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Aliotta, J.), dated June 27,2007, as denied those branches of her motion which were for an upward modification of anaward of pendente lite maintenance and child support, and for an award of arrears of pendentelite maintenance and child support.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court did not err in denying the wife's motion for an upward modification ofpendente lite maintenance and child support, as she failed to establish a substantial change incircumstances (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]). Furthermore,widely divergent views of the parties' financial circumstances have been presented in theirsubmissions. Therefore, the best remedy for any perceived inequities in the pendente lite award isa speedy trial, at which the disputed issues concerning the parties' financial capacity andcircumstances can be fully explored (see Hudak v Hudak, 222 AD2d 404 [1995]; see also Pascazi v Pascazi, 52 AD3d664 [2008]; Swickle v Swickle,47 AD3d 704 [2008]).
The court did not err in denying the wife's claim for an award of arrears of pendente litemaintenance and child support. The husband made certain payments toward the marital residence[*2]for which the wife was responsible, effectively relieving herof these expenses. The husband should be credited for these payments, and is entitled to offsetsuch payments against any accrued arrears (see Bara v Bara, 130 AD2d 613 [1987];Yecies v Yecies, 108 AD2d 813 [1985]). Given the limited financial informationprovided to this Court, it is impossible to determine the actual amount paid by the husband, andthe amount, if any, owed by the husband to the wife. These issues are best resolved at trial(see Shankles v Shankles, 173 AD2d 461 [1991]; Rogers v Rogers, 151 AD2d738 [1989]; Neumark v Neumark, 97 AD2d 537 [1983]). Skelos, J.P., Ritter, Carni andDickerson, JJ., concur.