Rigaglia v. Rigaglia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rigaglia v. Rigaglia

277 A.D.2d 216, 716 N.Y.S.2d 321, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11205

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

DecidedNovember 6, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 277 A.D.2d 216 (Rigaglia v. Rigaglia) 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

Rigaglia v. Rigaglia, 277 A.D.2d 216, 716 N.Y.S.2d 321, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11205 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

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 (Lefkowitz, J.), dated July 8, 1999, as granted the plaintiff wife’s motion for pendente lite maintenance, child support, and counsel fees.

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

[217]*217The court providently exercised its discretion in awarding pendente lite maintenance, child support, and counsel fees (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6]; Piali v Piali, 247 AD2d 455, 456; Lloyd v McGrath, 246 AD2d 630). Moreover, the court correctly imputed income to the parties (see, Mellen v Mellen, 260 AD2d 609; Brown v Brown, 239 AD2d 535; Matter of Prill v Mandell, 237 AD2d 445, 446; Matter of Mobley-Jennings v Dare, 226 AD2d 730). The proper remedy for any perceived inequities in such an award is a speedy trial, where the financial circumstances of the parties can be explored on a full record (see, Piali v Piali, supra; Lloyd v McGrath, supra). Mangano, P. J., Ritter, S. Miller and H. Miller, 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 (Lefkowitz, J.), dated July 8, 1999, as granted the plaintiff wife’s motion for pendente lite maintenance, child support, and counsel fees.

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

[217]*217The court providently exercised its discretion in awarding pendente lite maintenance, child support, and counsel fees (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6]; Piali v Piali, 247 AD2d 455, 456; Lloyd v McGrath, 246 AD2d 630). Moreover, the court correctly imputed income to the parties (see, Mellen v Mellen, 260 AD2d 609; Brown v Brown, 239 AD2d 535; Matter of Prill v Mandell, 237 AD2d 445, 446; Matter of Mobley-Jennings v Dare, 226 AD2d 730). The proper remedy for any perceived inequities in such an award is a speedy trial, where the financial circumstances of the parties can be explored on a full record (see, Piali v Piali, supra; Lloyd v McGrath, supra). Mangano, P. J., Ritter, S. Miller and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 216, 716 N.Y.S.2d 321, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rigaglia-v-rigaglia-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack