Iaquinto v. Iaquinto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Iaquinto v. Iaquinto

223 A.D.2d 581, 636 N.Y.S.2d 406, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 247

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 16, 1996·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff wife appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated April 13, 1995, as failed to award her pendente lite maintenance.

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

It is a well settled general rule that the most appropriate remedy for a perceived inequity in a pendente lite order is a prompt trial (see, Mayer v Mayer, 209 AD2d 271; Gianni v Gianni, 172 AD2d 487), and such an order will not be modified on appeal except under compelling circumstances (see, Raniolo v Raniolo, 185 AD2d 974; Suydam v Suydam, 167 AD2d 752). Inasmuch as the trial of the instant divorce action has already commenced and the wife has made no showing of compelling circumstances herein, we decline to depart from the general rule by modifying the Supreme Court’s order. Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, 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 wife appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated April 13, 1995, as failed to award her pendente lite maintenance.

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

It is a well settled general rule that the most appropriate remedy for a perceived inequity in a pendente lite order is a prompt trial (see, Mayer v Mayer, 209 AD2d 271; Gianni v Gianni, 172 AD2d 487), and such an order will not be modified on appeal except under compelling circumstances (see, Raniolo v Raniolo, 185 AD2d 974; Suydam v Suydam, 167 AD2d 752). Inasmuch as the trial of the instant divorce action has already commenced and the wife has made no showing of compelling circumstances herein, we decline to depart from the general rule by modifying the Supreme Court’s order. Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Iaquinto v. Iaquinto, 223 A.D.2d 581, 636 N.Y.S.2d 406, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 247 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

223 A.D.2d 581 (Iaquinto v. Iaquinto) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related