| Dowd v Dowd |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 05354 [74 AD3d 1013] |
| June 15, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Patricia Dowd, Appellant, v Thomas Peter Dowd,Respondent. |
—[*1] Winkler, Kurtz, Winkler & Kuhn, LLP, Port Jefferson Station, N.Y. (Janet O'Hanlon ofcounsel), for respondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff wife appeals, as limited by herbrief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Bivona, J.), dated July28, 2009, as granted that branch of her motion which was for an award of pendente litemaintenance to the extent of awarding her the sum of only $1,000 per week for 10 months, andthe sum of $800 per week thereafter, and directed a conference on those branches of her motionwhich were for an award of interim counsel fees and expert fees.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as directed a conference on thosebranches of the plaintiff's motion which were for an award of interim counsel fees and expertfees is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.
The portion of the order directing a conference on those branches of the plaintiff wife'smotion which were for an award of interim counsel fees and expert fees did not dispose of thosebranches of the motion and did not affect a substantial right, and therefore is not appealable as ofright (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2] [v]; Henning v Ritz, 44 AD3d 1005 [2007]). Since leave to appealtherefrom has not been granted, we dismiss the appeal from so much of the order as directed aconference on those branches of the wife's motion which were for an award of interim counselfees and expert fees.
Contrary to the wife's contention, modification of the pendente lite maintenance award is notwarranted. " 'Pendente lite awards should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs ofthe moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse . . . with due regardfor the preseparation standard of living' " (Levy v Levy, 72 AD3d 651, 652 [2010], quoting McGarrity v McGarrity, 49 AD3d824, 825 [2008]). "Modifications of pendente lite awards should rarely be made by anappellate [*2]court and then only under exigent circumstances,such as where a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations, or justice otherwiserequires" (Malik v Malik, 66 AD3d968, 968 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Avello v Avello, 72 AD3d 850 [2010]; Nealis v Nealis, 71 AD3d 851[2010]; Maksoud v Maksoud, 71AD3d 643 [2010]). Consequently, any perceived inequities in pendente lite maintenance canbest be remedied by a speedy trial, at which the parties' financial circumstances can be fullyexplored (see Levy v Levy, 72AD3d 651 [2010]; Avello vAvello, 72 AD3d 850 [2010]; Nealis v Nealis, 71 AD3d 851 [2010]; Maksoud v Maksoud, 71 AD3d643 [2010]; Swickle vSwickle, 47 AD3d 704, 705 [2008]). Here, the wife has not demonstrated the existenceof exigent circumstances warranting a modification of the pendente lite maintenance award.Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Roman, JJ., concur.