Najac v. Najac

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Najac v. Najac

12 A.D.3d 579, 784 N.Y.S.2d 384, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14245

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

DecidedNovember 22, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 12 A.D.3d 579 (Najac v. Najac) 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

Najac v. Najac, 12 A.D.3d 579, 784 N.Y.S.2d 384, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14245 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Strauss, J.), dated December 1, 2003, which, inter alia, awarded the plaintiff wife pendente lite child support in the sum of $1,020 per week for the parties’ four minor children.

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

“Pendente lite awards should reflect an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse with due regard for the parties’ preseparation standard of living” (Campanaro v Campanaro, 292 AD2d 330, 331 [2002]; Landau v Landau, 258 AD2d 508, 509 [1999]). “An appellate court will rarely modify such an award, unless exigent circumstances exist, such as where a party is unable to meet his or her own financial obligations or justice otherwise requires” (Taylor v Taylor, 306 AD2d 401 [2003]). Here, the defendant husband failed to demonstrate that such circumstances exist, and, therefore, modification of the order is unwarranted. “Rather, perceived inequities in pendente lite orders are best addressed via a speedy trial at which the parties’ economic circumstances may be thoroughly explored (Campanaro v Campanaro, supra at 331)” (DeVerna v DeVerna, 4 AD3d 323, 324 [2004] [internal quotation marks omitted]; Macagnone v Macagnone, 7 AD3d 680 [2004]). Schmidt, J.P., Cozier, Mastro and Fisher, 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 husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Strauss, J.), dated December 1, 2003, which, inter alia, awarded the plaintiff wife pendente lite child support in the sum of $1,020 per week for the parties’ four minor children.

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

“Pendente lite awards should reflect an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse with due regard for the parties’ preseparation standard of living” (Campanaro v Campanaro, 292 AD2d 330, 331 [2002]; Landau v Landau, 258 AD2d 508, 509 [1999]). “An appellate court will rarely modify such an award, unless exigent circumstances exist, such as where a party is unable to meet his or her own financial obligations or justice otherwise requires” (Taylor v Taylor, 306 AD2d 401 [2003]). Here, the defendant husband failed to demonstrate that such circumstances exist, and, therefore, modification of the order is unwarranted. “Rather, perceived inequities in pendente lite orders are best addressed via a speedy trial at which the parties’ economic circumstances may be thoroughly explored (Campanaro v Campanaro, supra at 331)” (DeVerna v DeVerna, 4 AD3d 323, 324 [2004] [internal quotation marks omitted]; Macagnone v Macagnone, 7 AD3d 680 [2004]). Schmidt, J.P., Cozier, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 579, 784 N.Y.S.2d 384, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/najac-v-najac-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack