Altenkirch v. Altenkirch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Altenkirch v. Altenkirch

225 A.D.2d 725, 640 N.Y.2d 193, 640 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3240

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 25, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 725 (Altenkirch v. Altenkirch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Altenkirch v. Altenkirch, 225 A.D.2d 725, 640 N.Y.2d 193, 640 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3240 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Considering the complexity of the defendant’s past and present business interests and that the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating their value at trial, and given the respective financial positions of the parties, we conclude that an award to the plaintiff of $3,000 in expert appraisal fees and $5,000 in expert accounting fees is appropriate (see, Domestic Relations Law § 237; Schwartz v Schwartz, 160 AD2d 791). Furthermore, [726]*726under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff is entitled to an award of pendente lite counsel fees in the amount of $7,500 (see, Domestic Relations Law § 237; Marksohn v Marksohn, 198 AD2d 70; see also, DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879). However, the trial court properly denied the plaintiff’s application for an increase in interim child support, since the plaintiff failed to show exigent circumstances to support such a modification in the existing interim support order (see, Green v Green, 216 AD2d 353; Gitter v Gitter, 208 AD2d 895).

We find no merit to the plaintiff’s remaining contentions.

We note that until discovery is complete and the parties have had an opportunity to present their respective cases, a determination of the status of the corporate assets in question for purposes of equitable distribution would be premature. Copertino, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Considering the complexity of the defendant’s past and present business interests and that the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating their value at trial, and given the respective financial positions of the parties, we conclude that an award to the plaintiff of $3,000 in expert appraisal fees and $5,000 in expert accounting fees is appropriate (see, Domestic Relations Law § 237; Schwartz v Schwartz, 160 AD2d 791). Furthermore, [726]*726under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff is entitled to an award of pendente lite counsel fees in the amount of $7,500 (see, Domestic Relations Law § 237; Marksohn v Marksohn, 198 AD2d 70; see also, DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879). However, the trial court properly denied the plaintiff’s application for an increase in interim child support, since the plaintiff failed to show exigent circumstances to support such a modification in the existing interim support order (see, Green v Green, 216 AD2d 353; Gitter v Gitter, 208 AD2d 895).

We find no merit to the plaintiff’s remaining contentions.

We note that until discovery is complete and the parties have had an opportunity to present their respective cases, a determination of the status of the corporate assets in question for purposes of equitable distribution would be premature. Copertino, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 725, 640 N.Y.2d 193, 640 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/altenkirch-v-altenkirch-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack