| Rubin v Della Salla |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 08368 [78 AD3d 504] |
| November 16, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Mara Rubin, Appellant, v Anthony Della Salla,Respondent. |
—[*1] Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman LLP, New York (Maxine R. Shapiro of counsel), forrespondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen Gesmer, J.), entered July 10, 2009, which, tothe extent appealed from, directed defendant to pay interim child support of $5,000 per month,unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff's contention that the motion court erred in not setting forth any analysis of the ChildSupport Standards Act (CSSA) factors (see Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [b] [3]; [c], [f]) toexplicate its award lacks merit. Courts considering applications for pendente lite child support may, intheir discretion, apply the CSSA standards and guidelines, but they are not required to do so (seeGeorge v George, 192 AD2d 693 [1993]; Rizzo v Rizzo, 163 AD2d 15, 16 [1990]). Inany event, direct application of the CSSA factors would have been difficult here because plaintiff madelittle effort to demonstrate the amount of expenses attributable to the care of the parties' son, insteadcombining expenses attributable to herself and her daughter (from a previous marriage) together withexpenses attributable to the son. In directing defendant to pay $5,000 per month in pendente lite childsupport, the motion court did provide a detailed review of the expense statements that were before it,as well as noting defendant's substantial income. The motion court further took the son's reasonablehousing needs into consideration by directing defendant to guarantee a one-year apartment lease at amonthly rental amount of up to $6,500. We find that the motion court did not abuse its discretion inmaking the award.
To the extent the award may be inadequate, the best remedy would be for a speedy and plenarytrial on the merits of these issues. Contrary to plaintiff's contentions, we do not perceive any "overlycomplex" issues that would present an obstacle to a speedy trial (Asteinza v Asteinza, 173AD2d 515, 516 [1991]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, Renwick andRomÁn, JJ.