| Maksoud v Maksoud |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01766 [71 AD3d 643] |
| March 2, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Laura Maksoud, Respondent, v Hassam Maksoud,Appellant. |
—[*1] David L. Martin, Mineola, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited byhis brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Zimmerman, J.),dated November 26, 2008, as granted the plaintiff wife's motion for pendente lite relief awardingher temporary child support in the sum of $600 per week and maintenance in the sum of $400per week, and directing him to pay all of the carrying costs on the marital residence.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
A pendente lite award of support should reflect an accommodation between the reasonableneeds of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse with due regard for theparties' preseparation standard of living (see Miller v Miller, 24 AD3d 521 [2005]; Bogannam v Bogannam, 20 AD3d442 [2005]). Modifications of pendente lite maintenance and child support should rarely bemade by an appellate court, and then only under exigent circumstances, such as when a party isunable to meet his or her financial obligations, or when justice otherwise requires (see DeVerna v DeVerna, 4 AD3d323 [2004]; Aliano v Aliano, 285 AD2d 522 [2001]; Piali v Piali, 247 AD2d455 [1998]). Consequently, any perceived inequities in pendente lite support and maintenancecan best be remedied by a speedy trial, at which the parties' financial circumstances can be fullyexplored (see Susskind v Susskind,18 AD3d 536, 537 [2005]; Najac vNajac, 12 AD3d 579 [2004]).
The husband argues that the payments required for, inter alia, child support ($600 per week),maintenance ($400 per week), and carrying costs on the marital residence ($359 per week), lefthim with insufficient income to meet his reasonable needs. The husband additionally contendsthat the parties' investment properties were operating at a loss and, therefore, his payment of thecarrying costs of those properties should be considered in determining the appropriateness of thependente lite support award. However, the contention that the properties were operating at a lossis not supported by the record, and the awards were proper under the circumstances and shouldnot be disturbed on appeal. Moreover, the husband's contention that the Supreme Court awardedthe wife a double shelter allowance by ordering him to pay carrying costs on the maritalresidence in addition to child support is without merit, as the Supreme Court did not apply theChild Support Standards Act when calculating the award (see Otto v Otto, 13 AD3d 503 [2004]; Ayoub v Ayoub, 63 AD3d 493,497 [2009]). Skelos, J.P., Covello, Balkin and Austin, JJ., concur.