Strauss v. Saadatmand

89 A.D.3d 415, 931 N.Y.2d 611
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 1, 2011·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

[416] We decline to disturb the pendente lite award. There is no showing of either exigent circumstances or a failure by Supreme Court to consider the appropriate factors, such as the parties’ respective incomes and their preseparation standard of living (see Mimran v Mimran, 83 AD3d 550, 550 [2011]; Ayoub v Ayoub, 63 AD3d 493, 497 [2009], appeal dismissed 14 NY3d 921 [2010]). The record does not support defendant’s contention that plaintiffs property assets constituted part of her compensation during the marriage (compare Isaacs v Isaacs, 246 AD2d 428, 428-429 [1998]).

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s request for sanctions. Plaintiffs commencement of this action in New York does not constitute frivolous conduct (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1; Granato v Granato, 51 AD3d 589, 590 [2008]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Sweeny, Renwick and Román, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Strauss v. Saadatmand, 89 A.D.3d 415, 931 N.Y.2d 611 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

89 A.D.3d 415 (Strauss v. Saadatmand) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Murray v. Rashid
180 N.Y.S.3d 16 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Souyun Lee v. Wei-Yeh Lee
136 A.D.3d 470 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Karg v. Kern
125 A.D.3d 527 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Donnelly v. Gur-Arie
93 A.D.3d 464 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)