| Truglia v Truglia |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00505 [91 AD3d 852] |
| Jnury 24, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Karrie L. Truglia, Appellant, v Joseph A. Truglia,Respondent. |
—[*1] Alysia R. Baker, Goshen, N.Y., for respondent. Martin R. Goldberg, Middletown, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief,from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Alfieri, J.), dated December 2,2010, as, after a hearing, granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was for an award ofpendente lite maintenance and directed her to pay the defendant pendente lite maintenance in thesum of $2,628.47 per week.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
"Modifications of pendente lite awards should rarely be made by an appellate court and thenonly under exigent circumstances, such as where a party is unable to meet his or her financialobligations, or justice otherwise requires" (Palmeri v Palmeri, 87 AD3d 572, 573 [2011] [internal quotationmarks omitted]; see Renga v Renga,86 AD3d 634, 635 [2011]). "Any perceived inequities in pendente lite support can best beremedied by a speedy trial, at which the parties' financial circumstances can be fully explored"(Conyea v Conyea, 81 AD3d869, 870 [2011]; see Renga v Renga, 86 AD3d at 635; Malik v Malik, 66 AD3d 968, 968[2009]).
In determining an award of pendente lite maintenance, a court should not rely on the newstatutory formula in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5-a) in actions, such as this one,commenced prior to its effective date (see Ingersoll v Ingersoll, 86 AD3d 684, 685 [2011]). Here,however, the Supreme Court's award, while erroneously arrived at using the new statutoryformula, can be upheld in accordance with the prior standard under former Domestic RelationsLaw § 236 (B) (6) (a). The award of pendente lite maintenance reflected " 'anaccommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability ofthe other spouse . . . with due regard for the preseparation standard of living' " (Dowd v Dowd, 74 AD3d 1013,1014 [2010], quoting Levy v Levy,72 AD3d 651, 652 [2010]). The plaintiff has not demonstrated any exigent circumstancesthat would warrant a modification of the pendente lite maintenance award. Rivera, J.P., Eng, Lottand Sgroi, JJ., concur.