Einhart v. Einhart

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Einhart v. Einhart

278 A.D.2d 360, 718 N.Y.S.2d 619, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13183

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

DecidedDecember 18, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 360 (Einhart v. Einhart) 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

Einhart v. Einhart, 278 A.D.2d 360, 718 N.Y.S.2d 619, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13183 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molía, J.), dated September 1, 1999, as granted the plaintiffs motion for pendente lite maintenance and support.

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

“Modifications of pendente lite awards should rarely be made [361]*361by 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” (Beige v Beige, 220 AD2d 636). Generally, the proper remedy for any perceived inequity in a pendente lite award is a speedy trial (see, Beige v Beige, supra; Zeitlin v Zeitlin, 209 AD2d 613). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record does not support his claim that the pendente lite award was so prohibitive as to prevent him from meeting his own financial obligations (see, Fried v Fried, 225 AD2d 584; Zeitlin v Zeitlin, supra). Accordingly, the defendant’s remedy is a speedy trial where the financial circumstances of the parties can be fully explored. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Florio and Schmidt, 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 defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molía, J.), dated September 1, 1999, as granted the plaintiffs motion for pendente lite maintenance and support.

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

“Modifications of pendente lite awards should rarely be made [361]*361by 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” (Beige v Beige, 220 AD2d 636). Generally, the proper remedy for any perceived inequity in a pendente lite award is a speedy trial (see, Beige v Beige, supra; Zeitlin v Zeitlin, 209 AD2d 613). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record does not support his claim that the pendente lite award was so prohibitive as to prevent him from meeting his own financial obligations (see, Fried v Fried, 225 AD2d 584; Zeitlin v Zeitlin, supra). Accordingly, the defendant’s remedy is a speedy trial where the financial circumstances of the parties can be fully explored. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 360, 718 N.Y.S.2d 619, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/einhart-v-einhart-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack