| Mueller v Mueller |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 02761 [61 AD3d 652] |
| April 7, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Barbara Mueller, Appellant, v Christoph Mueller,Respondent. |
—[*1] Lipsky Bresky & Lowe, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Wendy L. Lipsky of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an orderof the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kent, J.), dated June 25, 2008, as denied that branch ofher motion which was for an award of pendente lite child support, granted that branch of hermotion which was for an award of pendente lite maintenance to the extent of awarding her thesum of only $650 per week, and granted that branch of her motion which was for interim counselfees to the extent of awarding her the sum of only $10,000.
Ordered that the order is modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, byincreasing the award of interim counsel fees from the sum of $10,000 to the sum of $25,000; asso modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The plaintiff's contention that the Supreme Court's pendente lite maintenance award isinadequate is without merit. "Pendente lite awards should be an accommodation between thereasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse. . . with due regard for the preseparation standard of living" (McGarrity v McGarrity, 49 AD3d824, 825 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]). In addition to awarding the plaintifftemporary maintenance in the sum of $650 per week, the Supreme Court directed the defendantto pay the carrying charges on the marital residence, including mortgage payments, taxes,utilities, pool maintenance, and other household expenses. Moreover, the defendant was directedto maintain various types of insurance coverage for the plaintiff and the parties' children, and topay reasonable expenses associated with [*2]the parties' vehicles.Under these circumstances, the temporary maintenance award was sufficient to meet theplaintiff's reasonable needs during the pendency of this action (id.; see Cooper v Cooper, 7 AD3d746, 747 [2004]; Pascale v Pascale, 226 AD2d 439, 440 [1996]).
The plaintiff's contention that the Supreme Court erred in declining to award her pendentelite child support for the parties' two children is similarly without merit. Both the plaintiff andthe children continued to reside with the defendant in the marital residence, and there was noevidence that the children were not being properly cared for by the defendant (cf. Cataldi vShaw, 101 AD2d 823, 824 [1984]).
Given the disparity in the parties' financial circumstances, however, the Supreme Courtshould have granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for an award of interimcounsel fees in the sum of $25,000 (seePrichep v Prichep, 52 AD3d 61, 65-66 [2008]; Wald v Wald, 44 AD3d 848, 850-851 [2007]; Kaplan v Kaplan, 28 AD3d 523,523-524 [2006]). The court gave no explanation for its decision to award the sum of only$10,000, and the plaintiff's request for the sum of $25,000 was reasonable under thecircumstances. Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.