Gitter v. Gitter

208 A.D.2d 895, 617 N.Y.S.2d 895, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10685
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 31, 1994
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 895 (Gitter v. Gitter) 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
Gitter v. Gitter, 208 A.D.2d 895, 617 N.Y.S.2d 895, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10685 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated February 8, 1993, which, inter alia, directed that the plaintiff pay her $200 per week for pendente lite maintenance and child support.

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

Modifications of pendente lite awards 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 it (see, Bagner v Bagner, 207 AD2d 367). Moreover, the general rule continues to be that the proper remedy for any perceived inequity in a pendente lite award is a speedy trial (see, Gianni v Gianni, 172 AD2d 487). As this Court has repeatedly noted, pendente lite awards should be an accommodation between [896]*896the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse (see, Polito v Polito, 168 AD2d 440; Shapiro v Shapiro, 163 AD2d 294), and they are to be determined with due regard for the preseparation standard of living (see, Salerno v Salerno, 142 AD2d 670).

Based on an assessment of the foregoing considerations, we conclude that the pendente lite order of the Supreme Court is sufficient under the circumstances of this case and should not be disturbed on appeal. O’Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Penavic v. Penavic
60 A.D.3d 1026 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Pezza v. Pezza
300 A.D.2d 555 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Rich v. Rich
259 A.D.2d 478 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Appold v. Savaglio
249 A.D.2d 347 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Verderame v. Verderame
247 A.D.2d 609 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Shipman v. Shipman
237 A.D.2d 426 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Steers v. Steers
235 A.D.2d 530 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Forester v. Forester
234 A.D.2d 263 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Altenkirch v. Altenkirch
225 A.D.2d 725 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Gitter v. Gitter
217 A.D.2d 602 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Green v. Green
216 A.D.2d 353 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
208 A.D.2d 895, 617 N.Y.S.2d 895, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gitter-v-gitter-nyappdiv-1994.