Ash v. Ash

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ash v. Ash

262 A.D.2d 436, 692 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6621

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

DecidedJune 14, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 436 (Ash v. Ash) 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

Ash v. Ash, 262 A.D.2d 436, 692 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6621 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Goldstein, J.), dated April 8, 1998, which, inter alia, granted that branch of the defendant husband’s cross motion which was for a downward modification of the interim support award.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

It is well settled that a pendente lite award should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse, and is to be determined with due regard for the preseparation standard of living (see, Verderame v Verderame, 247 AD2d 609; Young v Young, 245 AD2d 560; Kesten v Kesten, 234 AD2d 427). Here, under the downward modification order granted by the court, the wife was awarded reduced temporary maintenance and child support, and the husband was directed to continue to pay the carrying charges on the marital residence, including the mortgage, taxes, utilities, gardening, pool service, cable, and sanitation. Contrary to the wife’s contentions, the reduced support and maintenance awards were sufficient to meet her reasonable needs and those of the children during the pendency of this action (see, Horowitz v Horowitz, 237 AD2d 490; Pascale v Pascale, 226 AD2d 439).

The wife’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. R, Santucci, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Goldstein, J.), dated April 8, 1998, which, inter alia, granted that branch of the defendant husband’s cross motion which was for a downward modification of the interim support award.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

It is well settled that a pendente lite award should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse, and is to be determined with due regard for the preseparation standard of living (see, Verderame v Verderame, 247 AD2d 609; Young v Young, 245 AD2d 560; Kesten v Kesten, 234 AD2d 427). Here, under the downward modification order granted by the court, the wife was awarded reduced temporary maintenance and child support, and the husband was directed to continue to pay the carrying charges on the marital residence, including the mortgage, taxes, utilities, gardening, pool service, cable, and sanitation. Contrary to the wife’s contentions, the reduced support and maintenance awards were sufficient to meet her reasonable needs and those of the children during the pendency of this action (see, Horowitz v Horowitz, 237 AD2d 490; Pascale v Pascale, 226 AD2d 439).

The wife’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. R, Santucci, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 436, 692 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ash-v-ash-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack