Moreira v. Moreira

84 A.D.3d 899, 921 N.Y.S.2d 901
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 10, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 84 A.D.3d 899 (Moreira v. Moreira) 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
Moreira v. Moreira, 84 A.D.3d 899, 921 N.Y.S.2d 901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bruno, J.), dated July 20, 2010, as granted that branch of her motion which was for an award of pendente lite maintenance to the extent of awarding her the sum of only $300 per week and granted that branch of her motion which was for an award of interim counsel fees to the extent of awarding her the sum of only $5,000.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by increasing the award of interim counsel fees from the sum of $5,000 to the sum of $15,000; as so modi[900]*900tied, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The wife’s contention that the Supreme Court’s award of pendente lite maintenance was inadequate is without merit, especially in light of the other expenses borne by the husband (see Mueller v Mueller, 61 AD3d 652, 653 [2009]; Cooper v Cooper, 7 AD3d 746, 747 [2004]). In any event, “[m] edifications of pendente lite awards should be sparingly made and then only under exigent circumstances such as where a party is unable to meet his or her own needs, or the interests of justice otherwise require relief’ (Campanaro v Campanaro, 292 AD2d 330, 331 [2002]; see Levy v Levy, 72 AD3d 651, 652 [2010]; Frates v Frates, 68 AD3d 813, 814 [2009]). The wife has not demonstrated the existence of exigent circumstances (see Levy v Levy, 72 AD3d at 652).

Given the disparity in the parties’ financial circumstances, however, the Supreme Court’s award of interim counsel fees was inadequate, and we increase it to the sum of $15,000 (see Mueller v Mueller, 61 AD3d at 654; Wald v Wald, 44 AD3d 848, 850-851 [2007]). Mastro, J.E, Balkin, Leventhal and Belen, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

King v. King
98 A.D.3d 1087 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
84 A.D.3d 899, 921 N.Y.S.2d 901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moreira-v-moreira-nyappdiv-2011.