Mercer v. Mercer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mercer v. Mercer

279 A.D.2d 616, 719 N.Y.S.2d 884, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 830

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 616 (Mercer v. Mercer) 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

Mercer v. Mercer, 279 A.D.2d 616, 719 N.Y.S.2d 884, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 830 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Plug, J.), as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for an award of maintenance pendente lite.

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

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding maintenance pendente lite (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6]; Piali v Piali, 247 AD2d 455, 456; Lloyd v McGrath, 246 AD2d 630). The proper remedy for any perceived inequities in the award is a speedy trial, where the financial circumstances of the parties can be explored (see, Piali v Piali, supra; Lloyd v McGrath, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Smith, 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 appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Plug, J.), as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for an award of maintenance pendente lite.

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

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding maintenance pendente lite (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6]; Piali v Piali, 247 AD2d 455, 456; Lloyd v McGrath, 246 AD2d 630). The proper remedy for any perceived inequities in the award is a speedy trial, where the financial circumstances of the parties can be explored (see, Piali v Piali, supra; Lloyd v McGrath, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 616, 719 N.Y.S.2d 884, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mercer-v-mercer-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack