| Nacos v Nacos |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 04943 [96 AD3d 579] |
| June 19, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Julie Karen Nacos, Appellant, v John Christopher Nacos,Respondent. |
—[*1] McLaughlin & Stern, LLP, New York (Eric Wrubel of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Deborah A. Kaplan, J.), entered February 10,2011, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiff's motion for pendente lite relief to theextent of awarding her $40,000 per month in unallocated interim non-taxable maintenance andsupport, inclusive of monthly rent, and $50,000 in interim counsel fees, and directing defendantto pay retroactive temporary support of $120,000 at the rate of $3,500 per month, and denied somuch of plaintiff's motion as sought $8,750 in unreimbursed school tuition deposits for theparties' children, and granted defendant's cross motion to the extent of directing plaintiff toprovide an accounting of all the monies paid to her since June 1, 2009, unanimously modified, onthe law, to increase defendant's monthly payment of retroactive support from $3,500 to $10,000,and to deny defendant's cross motion for an accounting, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.Order, same court and Justice, entered on or about June 20, 2011, which granted plaintiff'smotion for renewal and reargument only to the extent of increasing the award of interim counselfees from $50,000 to $100,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
In determining the award of temporary maintenance and support to plaintiff in the amount of$40,000, inclusive of monthly rent, the court considered the appropriate factors, includingplaintiff's and the four children's needs, defendant's ability to pay and history of paying all maritaland household expenses, and the parties' pre-separation standard of living (see Konecky v Kronfeld, 2 AD3d371 [2003]; Aron v Aron, 216 AD2d 98 [1995]; Barasch v Barasch, 166AD2d 399 [1990]).
Given the large discrepancy in the parties' respective incomes, the nature of the issues indispute, and plaintiff's lack of sufficient funds of her own with which to compensate counsel, thecourt properly increased the award of interim counsel fees from $50,000 to $100,000 (seeDomestic Relations Law § 237; CharpiÉ v CharpiÉ, 271 AD2d 169[2000]; see also Dodson v Dodson,46 AD3d 305 [2007]). An additional increase is not warranted at this time.
In light of defendant's substantial income, ability to pay, significant financial assets, andrelatively minimal liabilities, we find that he should pay the $120,000 in retroactive maintenanceand support at a rate of $10,000, rather than $3,500, per month.
Plaintiff submitted no evidence of her purported payment of the children's school tuition[*2]deposits and thus failed to establish her entitlement toreimbursement thereof (see e.g.Desautels v Desautels, 80 AD3d 926 [2011]).
Disclosure "by both parties of their respective financial states" is compulsory in amatrimonial action in which maintenance and support are at issue (Domestic Relations Law§ 236 [B] [4] [a]). Thus, defendant can obtain information material to the issues in disputethrough disclosure devices. He failed to set forth a factual basis for his request of a broadaccounting of plaintiff's use of all monies paid to her for maintenance and child support (seee.g. Rosenblatt v Birnbaum, 16 NY2d 212 [1965]). Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Catterson,Acosta, Freedman and Román, JJ.