Frates v. Frates

68 A.D.3d 813, 891 N.Y.2d 122
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 8, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 68 A.D.3d 813 (Frates v. Frates) 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
Frates v. Frates, 68 A.D.3d 813, 891 N.Y.2d 122 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

[814]*814The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court’s pendente lite award of child support and maintenance was inadequate is without merit. The purpose of a pendente lite award is to “ensure that a needy spouse is provided with funds for his or her support and reasonable needs and those of the children in his or her custody” (Pascale v Pascale, 226 AD2d 439, 440 [1996]; see Mueller v Mueller, 61 AD3d 652, 653 [2009]). Moreover, the proper remedy for any perceived inequity in a pendente lite award is a speedy trial (see Anderson v Anderson, 50 AD3d 610 [2008]).

Here, in addition to awarding the defendant pendente lite maintenance and child support in the sum of $3,000 per month, the Supreme Court directed the plaintiff to pay the sum of $3,376 per month for the mortgage, taxes, and home insurance on the marital residence, and the sum of $325 per month toward repayment of a bank loan the parties had jointly executed. Additionally, the plaintiff was directed to maintain life and health insurance for the defendant and the parties’ children, and to pay 70% of the children’s unreimbursed medical expenses and extracurricular activities.

Under these circumstances, the pendente lite child support and maintenance awards were sufficient to meet the reasonable needs of the defendant and the children during the pendency of the action (see McGarrity v McGarrity, 49 AD3d 824, 825 [2008]).

[815]*815The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.P., Angiolillo, Eng and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Finnan v. Finnan
95 A.D.3d 821 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Moreira v. Moreira
84 A.D.3d 899 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
68 A.D.3d 813, 891 N.Y.2d 122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frates-v-frates-nyappdiv-2009.