| Levesque v Levesque |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04342 [73 AD3d 990] |
| May 18, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Pura Levesque, Respondent, v Gregory Levesque,Appellant. |
—[*1]
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief,from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.), enteredJuly 14, 2009, as granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were to find him incontempt, to direct him to provide a completed statement of net worth, and for an award of aninterim attorney's fee in the sum of $10,000, and (2) so much of an order of the same courtentered August 25, 2009, as granted that branch of the plaintiff's cross motion which was for anaward of an additional interim attorney's fee to the extent of awarding the sum of $2,500.
Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
In this matrimonial action in which child support is at issue, the defendant is required to filea sworn statement of net worth in accordance with Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (4)(a). Although, in high income cases, the appropriate determination under Domestic RelationsLaw § 240 (1-b) (f) for an award of child support where parental income exceeds the sumof $130,000 should be based on the child's actual needs and the amount required for the child tolive an appropriate lifestyle, rather than the wealth of one or both parties (see Matter of Jackson v Tompkins, 65AD3d 1148 [2009]; Ansour vAnsour, 61 AD3d 536 [2009]; Matter of Vladlena B. v Mathias G., 52 AD3d 431 [2008]; Matter of Brim v Combs, 25 AD3d691, 693 [2006]), this rule does not relieve the defendant of the compulsory financialdisclosure requirements of Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (4) (a).
In view of the disparity in the parties' financial circumstances, the Supreme Court properlydirected the defendant to pay interim attorney's fees totaling the sum of $12,500 (seeDomestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; Sinanis v Sinanis, 67 AD3d 773, 774 [2009]; Prichep v Prichep, 52 AD3d 61,65 [2008]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Covello, J.P., Dickerson, Eng andAustin, JJ., concur.