Rich v. Rich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rich v. Rich

259 A.D.2d 478, 684 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2023

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

DecidedMarch 1, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 478 (Rich v. Rich) 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

Rich v. Rich, 259 A.D.2d 478, 684 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2023 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), dated December 23, 1997, which, inter alia, awarded the defendant wife pendente lite relief.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Modifications of pendente lite maintenance and child support awards 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 (see, Beige v Beige, 220 AD2d 636; Gitter v Gitter, 208 AD2d 895). The general rule is that the proper remedy for any perceived inequity in a pendente lite award is a speedy trial (see, Gianni v Gianni, 172 AD2d 487). As this Court has repeatedly noted, pendente lite awards should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving [479]*479spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse (see, Polito v Polito, 168 AD2d 440; Shapiro v Shapiro, 163 AJD2d 294). Based on these considerations, the pendente lite award of the Supreme Court was proper under the circumstances of this case and should not be disturbed.

The husband’s remaining contentions lack merit. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and McGinity, 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 plaintiff husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), dated December 23, 1997, which, inter alia, awarded the defendant wife pendente lite relief.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Modifications of pendente lite maintenance and child support awards 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 (see, Beige v Beige, 220 AD2d 636; Gitter v Gitter, 208 AD2d 895). The general rule is that the proper remedy for any perceived inequity in a pendente lite award is a speedy trial (see, Gianni v Gianni, 172 AD2d 487). As this Court has repeatedly noted, pendente lite awards should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving [479]*479spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse (see, Polito v Polito, 168 AD2d 440; Shapiro v Shapiro, 163 AJD2d 294). Based on these considerations, the pendente lite award of the Supreme Court was proper under the circumstances of this case and should not be disturbed.

The husband’s remaining contentions lack merit. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 478, 684 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2023, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rich-v-rich-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack