Chauca v. Chauca

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chauca v. Chauca

5 A.D.3d 421, 772 N.Y.S.2d 603

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

DecidedMarch 8, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 5 A.D.3d 421 (Chauca v. Chauca) 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

Chauca v. Chauca, 5 A.D.3d 421, 772 N.Y.S.2d 603 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Spolzino, J.), dated April 10, 2003, which, among other things, awarded pendente lite child support and maintenance and directed him to pay the carrying charges on the marital residence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

“Modifications of pendente lite maintenance and child sup[422]*422port should rarely be made by an appellate court, and then only under exigent circumstances, such as when a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations, or when justice otherwise requires” (Verderame v Verderame, 247 AD2d 609 [1998]; see Aliano v Aliano, 285 AD2d 522 [2001]). The husband did not demonstrate that the pendente lite award left him unable to meet his own financial obligations (see Pezza v Pezza, 300 AD2d 555 [2002]; Grant v Grant, 299 AD2d 521, 522 [2002]; Aliano v Aliano, supra). Any inequities perceived by the husband can best be remedied by a speedy trial (see Verderame v Verderame, supra; Weinberg v Weinberg, 247 AD2d 535, 536 [1998]; Shipman v Shipman, 237 AD2d 426, 427 [1997]; Pascale v Pascale, 226 AD2d 439, 440 [1996]).

The husband’s remaining contention is without merit. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Spolzino, J.), dated April 10, 2003, which, among other things, awarded pendente lite child support and maintenance and directed him to pay the carrying charges on the marital residence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

“Modifications of pendente lite maintenance and child sup[422]*422port should rarely be made by an appellate court, and then only under exigent circumstances, such as when a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations, or when justice otherwise requires” (Verderame v Verderame, 247 AD2d 609 [1998]; see Aliano v Aliano, 285 AD2d 522 [2001]). The husband did not demonstrate that the pendente lite award left him unable to meet his own financial obligations (see Pezza v Pezza, 300 AD2d 555 [2002]; Grant v Grant, 299 AD2d 521, 522 [2002]; Aliano v Aliano, supra). Any inequities perceived by the husband can best be remedied by a speedy trial (see Verderame v Verderame, supra; Weinberg v Weinberg, 247 AD2d 535, 536 [1998]; Shipman v Shipman, 237 AD2d 426, 427 [1997]; Pascale v Pascale, 226 AD2d 439, 440 [1996]).

The husband’s remaining contention is without merit. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 421, 772 N.Y.S.2d 603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chauca-v-chauca-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack