Campanaro v. Campanaro

292 A.D.2d 330, 738 N.Y.S.2d 74, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2212
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 4, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 292 A.D.2d 330 (Campanaro v. Campanaro) 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
Campanaro v. Campanaro, 292 A.D.2d 330, 738 N.Y.S.2d 74, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2212 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

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, Suffolk County (Blydenburgh, J.), dated June 1, 2001, as awarded the defendant wife $200 per week pendente lite maintenance, $6,000 in accountant fees, and $7,500 in interim counsel fees.

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

Pendente lite awards should reflect an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse with due regard for the parties’ preseparation standard of living (see, Landau v Landau, 258 AD2d 508, 509; Piali v Piali, 247 AD2d 455, 456; [331]*331Shapiro v Shapiro, 163 AD2d 294, 296). Modifications of pendente lite awards should be sparingly made and then only under exigent circumstances such as where a party is unable to meet his or her own needs, or the interests of justice otherwise require relief (see, Einhart v Einhart, 278 AD2d 360; Rich v Rich, 259 AD2d 478). Rather, perceived inequities in pendente lite orders are best addressed via a speedy trial at which the parties’ economic circumstances may be thoroughly explored (see, Gorman v Gorman, 286 AD2d 475, 476; Menashi v Menashi, 281 AD2d 522, 523; Rigaglia v Rigaglia, 277 AD2d 216, 217).

In light of, inter alia, the parties’ disparate economic circumstances, the award of pendente lite maintenance, expert accountant fees, and counsel fees was a provident exercise of discretion (see, Ferdinand v Ferdinand, 289 AD2d 195; Palamara v Palamara, 279 AD2d 559; Landau v Landau, supra at 509). S. Miller, J.P., Luciano, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

Related

S.A. v. L.A.
42 Misc. 3d 744 (New York Supreme Court, 2013)
Fratello v. Fratello
107 A.D.3d 667 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Pappas v. Pappas
103 A.D.3d 615 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Siskind v. Siskind
89 A.D.3d 832 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Moreira v. Moreira
84 A.D.3d 899 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Rosner v. Rosner
73 A.D.3d 1151 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Levy v. Levy
72 A.D.3d 651 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Lueker v. Lueker
72 A.D.3d 655 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Mbanefo v. Mbanefo
60 A.D.3d 648 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Ruane v. Ruane
55 A.D.3d 586 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
McLeod v. McLeod
50 A.D.3d 979 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Signorelli v. Signorelli
50 A.D.3d 772 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
J.S. v. J.S.
19 Misc. 3d 634 (New York Supreme Court, 2008)
Stubbs v. Stubbs
41 A.D.3d 832 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Care v. Nazzarena
41 A.D.3d 406 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Miller v. Miller
24 A.D.3d 521 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Biggio v. Biggio
21 A.D.3d 919 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Bogannam v. Bogannam
20 A.D.3d 442 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Levine v. Levine
19 A.D.3d 374 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Susskind v. Susskind
18 A.D.3d 536 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
292 A.D.2d 330, 738 N.Y.S.2d 74, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campanaro-v-campanaro-nyappdiv-2002.