| Tzu Ching Kao v Bonalle |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 08222 [145 AD3d 703] |
| December 7, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Tzu Ching Kao, Appellant, v David Bonalle,Respondent. |
Port & Sava, Lynbrook, NY (Gary B. Port and George Sava of counsel), forappellant.
Zimmet Bieber, LLP, New York, NY (Olga Batsedis of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the plaintiff from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court,Queens County (Pam Jackman Brown, J.), dated October 16, 2014. The order, inter alia,granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for an award of pendente litechild support and maintenance only to the extent of awarding the sums of $4,887.50 permonth and $1,965.12 per month, respectively.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The parties were married in 2007 and have one child. In 2013, the plaintiffcommenced this action for a divorce and ancillary relief. In the order appealed from, theSupreme Court, inter alia, granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were foran award of pendente lite child support and maintenance to the extent of awarding herthe sums of $4,887.50 per month and $1,965.12 per month, respectively. The plaintiffappeals, arguing, among other things, that she is entitled to an increased pendente liteaward.
" 'Modifications of pendente lite awards should rarely be made by anappellate court and then only under exigent circumstances, such as where a party isunable to meet his or her financial obligations, or justice otherwise requires' " (Yerushalmi v Yerushalmi, 136AD3d 809, 811 [2016], quoting Dowd v Dowd, 74 AD3d 1013, 1014 [2010]). Anyperceived inequities in pendente lite maintenance can best be remedied by a speedy trial,at which the parties' financial circumstances can be fully explored (see Dowd vDowd, 74 AD3d at 1014; Swickle v Swickle, 47 AD3d 704, 705 [2008]).
Here, although it appears that the parties' obligations may warrant adjustment when afinal award is made (see Domestic Relations Law §§ 236 [B][5-a] [c] [1] [d]; 240 [1-b] [b] [5] [vii] [C]), the plaintiff has not demonstrated theexistence of exigent circumstances warranting a modification of the pendente litemaintenance and child support awards.
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit. Dillon, J.P., Dickerson,Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.