| Shurka v Shurka |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 09087 [68 AD3d 488] |
| December 8, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Efraim Shurka, Appellant, v Jane Shurka,Respondent. |
—[*1] Ira E. Garr, New York, for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saralee Evans, J.), entered September 10, 2008,which, inter alia, granted defendant's motion for pendente lite relief in the form of spousalmaintenance of $12,000 per month, payment of all expenses of the marital residence, $75,000 ininterim fees to defendant's counsel, and the cost of an appraisal by a forensic evaluator of theclosely held corporation founded by plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The award of temporary maintenance is amply supported by the evidence demonstratingdefendant's financial need, the parties' income and assets, and their previous standard of living(see Ritter v Ritter, 135 AD2d 421, 422 [1987]). The undisputed evidence that the partiesenjoyed a lavish marital lifestyle, as well as the evidence that substantial personal expenses werepaid by the family-controlled business, supports the court's conclusion that plaintiff's actualincome and financial resources were substantially greater than he reported in tax returns andfinancial statements (see Wildenstein v Wildenstein, 251 AD2d 189 [1998]; JoseR.D. v Elisabeth R.D., 197 AD2d 457 [1993]). The amount awarded is substantially lessthan defendant requested, and corresponds with the amount plaintiff paid voluntarily for severalmonths following the separation, before threatening to cut off all support. Plaintiff shows noexigency which would warrant departure from the general rule that an aggrieved party's remedyfor perceived inequities in a pendente lite award is a speedy trial (see Sumner v Sumner,289 AD2d 129 [2001]).
Whether or not plaintiff stipulated to the appointment of a financial evaluator to appraise thefamily-controlled business, of which he is chief executive officer, and regardless of his claimsthat he has no ownership interest in the company and that the company is not marital property, inlight of the evidence of the commingling of plaintiff's personal finances with the company'sfinances, the court properly appointed an appraiser to conduct an audit to enable it to determinethe equitable distribution of marital assets and an award of maintenance (see Pechman vPechman, 303 AD2d 479 [2003]; Gellman v Gellman, 160 AD2d 265, 267 [1990]).Given the large discrepancy in the parties' respective incomes and the nature of the issues indispute, there [*2]is no basis for interfering with the award ofinterim counsel fees and the appraiser's fee (see generally CharpiÉ vCharpiÉ, 271 AD2d 169, 173 [2000]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny,Moskowitz and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.