Flink v. Flink

92 A.D.3d 833, 938 N.Y.2d 822
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 21, 2012·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

“Modifications of pendente lite awards should rarely be made by an appellate court and then only under exigent circumstances, such as when a party cannot meet his or her financial [834] obligations” (Avello v Avello, 72 AD3d 850, 852 [2010]). Perceived inequities in a pendente lite order can best be remedied by a speedy trial at which the parties’ financial circumstances can be fully explored (see Palmeri v Palmeri, 87 AD3d 572 [2011]). Here, the defendant has demonstrated no basis upon which to modify the award of temporary maintenance to the plaintiff (id.).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

The cross appeal must be dismissed as abandoned, as the plaintiff does not seek in her brief reversal or modification of any portion of the order (see Ferri v Ferri, 71 AD3d 949, 950 [2010]). Dillon, J.E, Florio, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

Flink v. Flink, 92 A.D.3d 833, 938 N.Y.2d 822 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

92 A.D.3d 833 (Flink v. Flink) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Brennan v. Wappingers Cent. Sch. Dist.
2018 NY Slip Op 5745 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Tadesse v. Amanu
116 A.D.3d 1034 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Truglia v. Truglia
96 A.D.3d 825 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)