Reardon-Patten v. Patten

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reardon-Patten v. Patten

131 A.D.2d 555, 516 N.Y.S.2d 278, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48009

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

DecidedJune 8, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 131 A.D.2d 555 (Reardon-Patten v. Patten) 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

Reardon-Patten v. Patten, 131 A.D.2d 555, 516 N.Y.S.2d 278, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48009 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered September 15, 1986, as granted that branch of the plaintiff wife’s motion for pendente lite relief which was to require him to pay all reasonable expenses in connection with the marital residence.

Ordered that the order is modified, by requiring both parties to pay, pendente lite, one half of the reasonable expenses in connection with the marital residence. As so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

[556]*556The defendant is incorrect in his contention that the Supreme Court improperly awarded open-ended carrying charges. This court has specifically held that "payments directed by a pendente lite order, as opposed to a final judgment, do not represent open-ended obligations” (Rainone v Rainone, 118 AD2d 766, 767). However, although the Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in deciding the plaintiffs motion on the merits, since the respective incomes of the parties are comparable, the court should have ordered both parties to pay, pendente lite, one half of all of the reasonable expenses in connection with the marital residence. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Rubin, Kunzeman and Sullivan, 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 so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered September 15, 1986, as granted that branch of the plaintiff wife’s motion for pendente lite relief which was to require him to pay all reasonable expenses in connection with the marital residence.

Ordered that the order is modified, by requiring both parties to pay, pendente lite, one half of the reasonable expenses in connection with the marital residence. As so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

[556]*556The defendant is incorrect in his contention that the Supreme Court improperly awarded open-ended carrying charges. This court has specifically held that "payments directed by a pendente lite order, as opposed to a final judgment, do not represent open-ended obligations” (Rainone v Rainone, 118 AD2d 766, 767). However, although the Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in deciding the plaintiffs motion on the merits, since the respective incomes of the parties are comparable, the court should have ordered both parties to pay, pendente lite, one half of all of the reasonable expenses in connection with the marital residence. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Rubin, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D.2d 555, 516 N.Y.S.2d 278, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48009, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reardon-patten-v-patten-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack