Maragni v. Maragni

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maragni v. Maragni

250 A.D.2d 741, 671 N.Y.S.2d 995, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5797

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

DecidedMay 18, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 741 (Maragni v. Maragni) 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

Maragni v. Maragni, 250 A.D.2d 741, 671 N.Y.S.2d 995, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5797 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff husband appeals and the defendant wife cross-appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, as limited by their respective briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), entered June 2, 1997, as directed the husband to pay pendente lite maintenance in the amount of $100 per week, the wife’s interim accountant’s fees in the amount of $2,500, the wife’s interim counsel fees in the amount of $3,500, and court reporter’s fees in the amount of $2,000, and the husband further appeals from so much of the same order as awarded the wife exclusive possession of the parties’ Ford Explorer and directed him to pay various expenses associated with the vehicle.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Modifications of pendente lite awards should rarely be made by an appellate court and then only under exigent circumstances (see, Albanese v Albanese, 234 AD2d 489). Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the pendente lite order of the Supreme Court should not be disturbed on appeal.

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Joy, Florio and McGinity, 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 husband appeals and the defendant wife cross-appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, as limited by their respective briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), entered June 2, 1997, as directed the husband to pay pendente lite maintenance in the amount of $100 per week, the wife’s interim accountant’s fees in the amount of $2,500, the wife’s interim counsel fees in the amount of $3,500, and court reporter’s fees in the amount of $2,000, and the husband further appeals from so much of the same order as awarded the wife exclusive possession of the parties’ Ford Explorer and directed him to pay various expenses associated with the vehicle.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Modifications of pendente lite awards should rarely be made by an appellate court and then only under exigent circumstances (see, Albanese v Albanese, 234 AD2d 489). Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the pendente lite order of the Supreme Court should not be disturbed on appeal.

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Joy, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 741, 671 N.Y.S.2d 995, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maragni-v-maragni-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack