Malik v Malik
2009 NY Slip Op 07802 [66 AD3d 968]
October 27, 2009
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, December 9, 2009


Zeenat Malik, Respondent,
v
Zaheer Malik,Appellant.

[*1]Bhatia & Associates, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Satish K. Bhatia and Bruno C. Bier ofcounsel), for appellant. Azam & Hertz LLP, Jackson Heights, N.Y. (Khalid M. Azam and GeraldM. Hertz of counsel), for respondent.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief,from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Fitzmaurice, J.), datedSeptember 23, 2008, as granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for an awardof pendente lite child support and maintenance, and to direct him to temporarily pay thechildren's medical and dental expenses.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

"Modifications of pendente lite awards should rarely be made by an appellate court and thenonly under exigent circumstances, such as where a party is unable to meet his or her financialobligations, or justice otherwise requires" (Levakis v Levakis, 7 AD3d 678, 678 [2004]; see Silver v Silver, 46 AD3d 667,668 [2007]). Pendente lite awards "should be an accommodation between the reasonable needsof the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse . . . with dueregard for the preseparation standard of living" (Levakis v Levakis, 7 AD3d at 678[internal quotation marks omitted]; see Silver v Silver, 46 AD3d at 668; Byer v Byer,199 AD2d 298 [1993]). "A speedy trial is ordinarily the proper remedy to rectify a perceivedinequity in a pendente lite award" (Levakis v Levakis, 7 AD3d at 678).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding the plaintiff the sum of$1,500 per month in temporary child support and $250 per week in temporary maintenance, andin directing the defendant to temporarily pay the medical and dental expenses of the children(id. at 679). The defendant has failed to establish the existence of exigent circumstancessufficient to warrant a modification of the pendente lite awards (see McGarrity v McGarrity, 49 AD3d824 [2008]).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Lott andAustin, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.