| Nealis v Nealis |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 02112 [71 AD3d 851] |
| March 16, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Malina Nealis, Appellant, v Kevin Nealis,Respondent. |
—[*1] Alysia R. Baker, Goshen, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her briefand a letter dated February 18, 2010, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, OrangeCounty (Alessandro, J.), dated September 30, 2008, as granted that branch of her cross motionwhich was for an award of $25,000 per month in pendente lite child support only to the extent ofawarding her $1,500 per month in pendente lite child support.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff wife and the defendant husband were married on August 25, 1984; they havethree children. During their marriage, the parties invested in small and mid-sized rentalproperties throughout the tri-state area, eventually owning 23 buildings with an estimated totalvalue of $50,000,000. On or about May 25, 2007, the plaintiff commenced this action for adivorce and ancillary relief. Approximately one year later, she cross-moved for certain pendentelite relief, including $25,000 per month in child support. The Supreme Court granted that branchof her motion to the extent of awarding her $1,500 per month in child support. The plaintiffappeals. We affirm.
Modifications of pendente lite awards should rarely be made by an appellate court and thenonly under exigent circumstances, such as when a party cannot meet his or her financialobligations (see Brooks v Brooks,30 AD3d 363, 364 [2006]; Otto vOtto, 13 AD3d 503 [2004]). "[A]ny perceived inequities in pendente lite support andmaintenance can best be remedied by a speedy trial, at which the parties' financial circumstancescan be fully explored" (Swickle vSwickle, 47 AD3d 704, 705 [2008]). Here, the plaintiff failed to meet her burden ofdemonstrating exigent circumstances.
We reject the defendant's contention that the plaintiff should be sanctioned for filing anallegedly frivolous appeal (see generally 22 NYCRR 130-1.1). Dillon, J.P., Santucci,Balkin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.