Berlly v. Berlly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Berlly v. Berlly

237 A.D.2d 553, 655 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3041

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 237 A.D.2d 553 (Berlly v. Berlly) 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

Berlly v. Berlly, 237 A.D.2d 553, 655 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3041 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mc-Caffrey, J.), dated March 14, 1996, as granted the defendant wife’s motion for a pendente lite award of maintenance, child support, and counsel and expert’s fees.

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 then only under exigent circumstances such as where a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations or justice otherwise requires (see, Raniolo v Raniolo, 185 AD2d 974). Moreover, the general rule continues to be that the proper remedy for any perceived inequity in a pendente lite award is a speedy trial (see, Gianni v Gianni, 172 AD2d 487). As this Court has repeatedly noted, pendente lite awards should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse (see, Polito v Polito, 168 AD2d 440; Shapiro v Shapiro, 163 AD2d 294), and are to be determined with due regard for the pre-separation standard of living (see, Salerno v Salerno, 142 AD2d 670).

[554]*554Based on an assessment of the foregoing considerations, we conclude that the pendente lite award of maintenance and child support was proper under the circumstances presented and should not be disturbed on appeal. In addition, the pendente lite awards of counsel fees and accountant’s fees pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237 (a) (3) were proper.

The husband’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Thompson, Altman and Luciano, 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 husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mc-Caffrey, J.), dated March 14, 1996, as granted the defendant wife’s motion for a pendente lite award of maintenance, child support, and counsel and expert’s fees.

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 then only under exigent circumstances such as where a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations or justice otherwise requires (see, Raniolo v Raniolo, 185 AD2d 974). Moreover, the general rule continues to be that the proper remedy for any perceived inequity in a pendente lite award is a speedy trial (see, Gianni v Gianni, 172 AD2d 487). As this Court has repeatedly noted, pendente lite awards should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse (see, Polito v Polito, 168 AD2d 440; Shapiro v Shapiro, 163 AD2d 294), and are to be determined with due regard for the pre-separation standard of living (see, Salerno v Salerno, 142 AD2d 670).

[554]*554Based on an assessment of the foregoing considerations, we conclude that the pendente lite award of maintenance and child support was proper under the circumstances presented and should not be disturbed on appeal. In addition, the pendente lite awards of counsel fees and accountant’s fees pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237 (a) (3) were proper.

The husband’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Thompson, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 553, 655 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3041, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berlly-v-berlly-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack