Goldstein v. Goldstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldstein v. Goldstein

303 A.D.2d 550, 756 N.Y.S.2d 464

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

DecidedMarch 17, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 550 (Goldstein v. Goldstein) 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

Goldstein v. Goldstein, 303 A.D.2d 550, 756 N.Y.S.2d 464 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Shapiro, J.), entered April 26, 2002, as awarded the plaintiff wife certain pendente lite maintenance and housing expenses.

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

The defendant appeals from those portions of an order which awarded the plaintiff wife various pendente lite relief. The challenged awards are a proper accommodation between the reasonable needs of the plaintiff and the financial ability of the defendant, giving due regard to the parties’ preseparation standard of living (see Ash v Ash, 262 AD2d 436 [1999]; Friedman v Friedman, 163 AD2d 461, 462 [1990]). Indeed, modification of a pendente lite award on appeal is rarely made, and then only under exigent circumstances, such as where a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations or justice otherwise requires (see Wallach v Wallach, 236 AD2d 604, 605 [1997]; Beige v Beige, 220 AD2d 636 [1995]). Here, no such circumstances are present. Thus, the proper remedy for any perceived inequity in a pendente lite award is a speedy trial (see Campanella v Campanella, 232 AD2d 598, 599 [1996]; (Gianni v Gianni, 172 AD2d 487, 488 [1991]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Florio, S. Miller and H. Miller, 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 husband appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Shapiro, J.), entered April 26, 2002, as awarded the plaintiff wife certain pendente lite maintenance and housing expenses.

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

The defendant appeals from those portions of an order which awarded the plaintiff wife various pendente lite relief. The challenged awards are a proper accommodation between the reasonable needs of the plaintiff and the financial ability of the defendant, giving due regard to the parties’ preseparation standard of living (see Ash v Ash, 262 AD2d 436 [1999]; Friedman v Friedman, 163 AD2d 461, 462 [1990]). Indeed, modification of a pendente lite award on appeal is rarely made, and then only under exigent circumstances, such as where a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations or justice otherwise requires (see Wallach v Wallach, 236 AD2d 604, 605 [1997]; Beige v Beige, 220 AD2d 636 [1995]). Here, no such circumstances are present. Thus, the proper remedy for any perceived inequity in a pendente lite award is a speedy trial (see Campanella v Campanella, 232 AD2d 598, 599 [1996]; (Gianni v Gianni, 172 AD2d 487, 488 [1991]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Florio, S. Miller and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 550, 756 N.Y.S.2d 464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldstein-v-goldstein-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack