Oquendo v. Oquendo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Oquendo v. Oquendo

7 A.D.3d 687, 776 N.Y.S.2d 505

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

DecidedMay 17, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 7 A.D.3d 687 (Oquendo v. Oquendo) 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

Oquendo v. Oquendo, 7 A.D.3d 687, 776 N.Y.S.2d 505 (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, Nassau County (Woodard, J.), dated December 18, 2002, which, inter alia, directed him to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $200 per week as pendente lite child support and $1,500 per month toward the carrying charges on the marital residence. The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court, dated July 2, 2003, as, upon reargument, reduced the award of pendente lite child support to $168 per week and otherwise adhered to the original determination (see CFLR 5517 [b]).

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated December 18, 2002, is dismissed, as the order was superseded by the order dated July 2, 2003, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated July 2, 2003, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

[688]*688“Modifications of pendente lite maintenance and child support should rarely be made by an appellate court, and then only under exigent circumstances, such as when a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations, or when justice otherwise requires” (Chauca v Chauca, 5 AD3d 421, 421-422 [2004]; Verderame v Verderame, 247 AD2d 609 [1998]; see Aliano v Aliano, 285 AD2d 522 [2001]; Smitreski v Smitreski, 251 AD2d 490 [1998]). The husband did not demonstrate that the pendente lite award left him unable to meet his own financial obligations (see Chauca v Chauca, supra; Aliano v Aliano, supra). The Supreme Court’s assessment represents an adequate accommodation between the reasonable needs of both parties (see Aliano v Aliano, supra; Smitreski v Smitreski, supra). Any inequities perceived by the husband can best be remedied by a speedy trial (see Chauca v Chauca, supra; Aliano v Aliano, supra; Verderame v Verderame, supra). Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, H. Miller and Adams, 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, Nassau County (Woodard, J.), dated December 18, 2002, which, inter alia, directed him to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $200 per week as pendente lite child support and $1,500 per month toward the carrying charges on the marital residence. The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court, dated July 2, 2003, as, upon reargument, reduced the award of pendente lite child support to $168 per week and otherwise adhered to the original determination (see CFLR 5517 [b]).

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated December 18, 2002, is dismissed, as the order was superseded by the order dated July 2, 2003, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated July 2, 2003, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

[688]*688“Modifications of pendente lite maintenance and child support should rarely be made by an appellate court, and then only under exigent circumstances, such as when a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations, or when justice otherwise requires” (Chauca v Chauca, 5 AD3d 421, 421-422 [2004]; Verderame v Verderame, 247 AD2d 609 [1998]; see Aliano v Aliano, 285 AD2d 522 [2001]; Smitreski v Smitreski, 251 AD2d 490 [1998]). The husband did not demonstrate that the pendente lite award left him unable to meet his own financial obligations (see Chauca v Chauca, supra; Aliano v Aliano, supra). The Supreme Court’s assessment represents an adequate accommodation between the reasonable needs of both parties (see Aliano v Aliano, supra; Smitreski v Smitreski, supra). Any inequities perceived by the husband can best be remedied by a speedy trial (see Chauca v Chauca, supra; Aliano v Aliano, supra; Verderame v Verderame, supra). Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 687, 776 N.Y.S.2d 505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oquendo-v-oquendo-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack