| Levy v Levy |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 02928 [72 AD3d 651] |
| April 6, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Brian J. Levy, Respondent, v Marisa Levy,Appellant. |
—[*1] Mark A. Peterson, Smithtown, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited byher brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Blydenburgh, J.),dated June 3, 2009, as granted those branches of the plaintiff's cross motion which were tomodify a previous order of pendente lite support dated April 7, 2008, by imputing to her annualincome in the sum of $50,000 and by relieving the plaintiff of his obligation to make temporarychild support payments to her in the amount of $150 per week and make temporary maintenancepayments to her in the amount of $350 per week.
Ordered that the order dated June 3, 2009, is modified, on the facts and in the exercise ofdiscretion, by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the plaintiff's cross motionwhich was to modify the previous order of pendente lite support dated April 7, 2008, byrelieving the plaintiff of his obligation to make temporary child support payments to thedefendant in the amount of $150 per week and make temporary maintenance payments to thedefendant in the amount of $350 per week, and substituting therefor a provision denying thatbranch of the cross motion; as so modified, the order dated June 3, 2009, is affirmed insofar asappealed from, with costs to the defendant.
"Pendente lite awards should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs of themoving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse . . . with due regard forthe preseparation standard of living" (McGarrity v McGarrity, 49 AD3d 824, 825 [2008] [internalquotation marks omitted]; see Malik vMalik, 66 AD3d 968 [2009]; Mueller v Mueller, 61 AD3d 652, 653 [2009]; Whelan v Whelan, 59 AD3d 437,438 [2009]; Silver v Silver, 46AD3d 667, 668 [2007]). "Modifications of pendente lite awards should be sparingly madeand then only under exigent circumstances such as where a party is unable to meet his or herown needs, or the interests of justice otherwise require relief" (Campanaro v Campanaro,292 AD2d 330, 331 [2002]; see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; Ruane v Ruane, 55 AD3d 586,587-588 [2008]; Bogannam vBogannam, 20 AD3d 442 [2005]; Levine v Levine, 19 AD3d 374, 376-377 [2005]). Perceivedinequities in pendente lite awards are best remedied by a speedy trial, at which the parties'financial circumstances can be fully explored (see Sinanis v Sinanis, 67 AD3d 773, 774 [2009]; Malik vMalik, 66 AD3d at 968; Penavic vPenavic, 60 AD3d 1026, 1028 [2009]; Barone v [*2]Barone, 41 AD3d623, 624 [2007]; Bogannam vBogannam, 20 AD3d 442 [2005]).
The record indicates that the plaintiff has sufficient resources to provide for his family asestablished in the pendente lite award and meet his own financial obligations. Also, no exigentcircumstances were set forth. Thus, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion ineliminating his pendente lite child support and maintenance obligations (see Sinanis vSinanis, 67 AD3d at 774; Ruane v Ruane, 55 AD3d at 588; Krigsman vKrigsman, 288 AD2d 189, 191 [2d Dept 2001]). Any perceived inequities in the pendentelite award can be best remedied by a speedy trial (see Sinanis v Sinanis, 67 AD3d at 774;Swickle v Swickle, 47 AD3d704, 705 [2008]; Stubbs vStubbs, 41 AD3d 832, 833 [2007]; Barone v Barone, 41 AD3d at 624).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before thisCourt. Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.