| Frates v Frates |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 09185 [68 AD3d 813] |
| December 8, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| John Frates, Respondent, v Kelly Frates,Appellant. |
—[*1] Stephen M. Santoro, Sr., P.C., Carmel, N.Y. (Sarah R. Scigliano of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant wife appeals, as limited by herbrief, (1) from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (O'Rourke, J.),dated November 19, 2008, which, inter alia, granted that branch of her motion which was forinterim child support and maintenance only to the extent of awarding her the sum of $3,000 permonth plus reimbursement for mortgage, taxes, and home insurance in the sum of $3,376 permonth, and denied those branches of her motion which were for an award of interim attorney'sfees and to direct the plaintiff husband to obtain additional life insurance, (2) from so much of anorder of the same court dated February 19, 2009, as, upon reargument, adhered to the originaldeterminations in the order dated November 19, 2008, granting that branch of her motion whichwas for interim child support and maintenance only to the extent of awarding her the sum of$3,000 per month, plus reimbursement for mortgage, taxes, and home insurance in the sum of$3,376 per month, and denying those branches of her motion which were for an award of interimattorney's fees and to direct the plaintiff to obtain additional life insurance, (3) from statedportions of an order of the same court, also dated February 19, 2009, which, inter alia, directedher to pay the sum of $325 per month toward repayment of a bank loan, (4) from stated portionsof an order of the same court dated April 3, 2009, which, inter alia, denied that branch of hermotion which was to hold the plaintiff in contempt for failure to comply with the order datedNovember 19, 2008 for alleged nonpayment of interim child support and maintenance anddenied her application for an award of interim attorney's fees, and (5) from stated portions of anorder of the same court dated May 15, 2009, which, inter alia, denied those branches of hermotion which were to appoint a forensic expert and to vacate the note of issue.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order dated November 19, 2008 as granted thatbranch of the defendant's motion which was for interim child support and maintenance [*2]only to the extent of awarding her the sum of $3,000 per monthplus reimbursement for mortgage, taxes, and home insurance in the sum of $3,376 per month,and denied those branches of her motion which were for an award of interim attorney's fees andto direct the plaintiff to obtain additional life insurance is dismissed, as those portions of theorder were superseded by the first order dated February 19, 2009, made upon reargument; and itis further,
Ordered that the order dated November 19, 2008 is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it isfurther,
Ordered that the two orders dated February 19, 2009 and the orders dated April 3, 2009,andMay 15, 2009, are affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's pendente lite award of child support andmaintenance was inadequate is without merit. The purpose of a pendente lite award is to "ensurethat a needy spouse is provided with funds for his or her support and reasonable needs and thoseof the children in his or her custody" (Pascale v Pascale, 226 AD2d 439, 440 [1996]; see Mueller v Mueller, 61 AD3d652, 653 [2009]). Moreover, the proper remedy for any perceived inequity in a pendente liteaward is a speedy trial (see Anderson vAnderson, 50 AD3d 610 [2008]).
Here, in addition to awarding the defendant pendente lite maintenance and child support inthe sum of $3,000 per month, the Supreme Court directed the plaintiff to pay the sum of $3,376per month for the mortgage, taxes, and home insurance on the marital residence, and the sum of$325 per month toward repayment of a bank loan the parties had jointly executed. Additionally,the plaintiff was directed to maintain life and health insurance for the defendant and the parties'children, and to pay 70% of the children's unreimbursed medical expenses and extracurricularactivities.
Under these circumstances, the pendente lite child support and maintenance awards weresufficient to meet the reasonable needs of the defendant and the children during the pendency ofthe action (see McGarrity vMcGarrity, 49 AD3d 824, 825 [2008]).
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.P., Angiolillo, Eng and Lott,JJ., concur.