Gorman v. Gorman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gorman v. Gorman

286 A.D.2d 475, 729 N.Y.S.2d 644, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8271

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

DecidedAugust 27, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 286 A.D.2d 475 (Gorman v. Gorman) 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

Gorman v. Gorman, 286 A.D.2d 475, 729 N.Y.S.2d 644, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8271 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kent, J.), dated February 27, 2001, which, inter alia, denied that branch of her motion which was for pendente lite child support, awarded her pendente lite counsel fees in the sum of only $2,500, and awarded her pendente lite maintenance in the sum of only $300 per week.

[476]*476Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

As a general rule, any perceived inequities in pendente lite awards are best addressed in a speedy trial where issues such as the standard of living enjoyed by the parties during the marriage can be determined (see, Verderame v Verderame, 247 AD2d 609; Weinberg v Weinberg, 247 AD2d 535). Under the circumstances of this case, we find no basis to modify the pendente lite award. O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Smith and Adams, 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 plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kent, J.), dated February 27, 2001, which, inter alia, denied that branch of her motion which was for pendente lite child support, awarded her pendente lite counsel fees in the sum of only $2,500, and awarded her pendente lite maintenance in the sum of only $300 per week.

[476]*476Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

As a general rule, any perceived inequities in pendente lite awards are best addressed in a speedy trial where issues such as the standard of living enjoyed by the parties during the marriage can be determined (see, Verderame v Verderame, 247 AD2d 609; Weinberg v Weinberg, 247 AD2d 535). Under the circumstances of this case, we find no basis to modify the pendente lite award. O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Smith and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 475, 729 N.Y.S.2d 644, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gorman-v-gorman-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack