Turret v. Turret

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Turret v. Turret

2017 NY Slip Op 950, 147 A.D.3d 467, 46 N.Y.S.3d 598

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2017

Docket3046N 312678/14

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 950 (Turret v. Turret) 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

Turret v. Turret, 2017 NY Slip Op 950, 147 A.D.3d 467, 46 N.Y.S.3d 598 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Frank P. Ñervo, J.), entered February 16, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant wife’s application for interim monthly maintenance in the amount of $11,564.78, tax-free, and $175,000 in interim counsel fees from plaintiff husband, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly applied the formula set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5-a) in calculating the award of temporary spousal maintenance to the wife. In determining *468 an upward departure from the presumptive amount was appropriate, the court relied upon two of the enumerated factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (5-a) (h) (1), the substantial differences in the incomes of the parties and the standard of living of the parties established during the marriage. The court also explained its deviation from the presumptive guidelines award in its decision (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [5-a] [d] [3]). Under the circumstances “the amount awarded is a proper accommodation between the reasonable needs of [the wife] and the financial ability of [the husband], while taking into consideration the pre-separation standard of living” (Brown v Brown, 123 AD3d 596, 596 [1st Dept 2014]).

The court also providently exercised its discretion in awarding the wife $175,000 in counsel fees, pendente lite, upon its determination that the husband was in a better position to bear the cost of her legal fees at that time under Domestic Relations Law § 237 (Bricker v Powers, 208 AD2d 463 [1st Dept 1994]). Regardless, it is “well settled that a speedy trial is plaintiff’s proper remedy in this situation” (id. at 463).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.R, Andrias, Moskowitz, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Frank P. Ñervo, J.), entered February 16, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant wife’s application for interim monthly maintenance in the amount of $11,564.78, tax-free, and $175,000 in interim counsel fees from plaintiff husband, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly applied the formula set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5-a) in calculating the award of temporary spousal maintenance to the wife. In determining *468 an upward departure from the presumptive amount was appropriate, the court relied upon two of the enumerated factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (5-a) (h) (1), the substantial differences in the incomes of the parties and the standard of living of the parties established during the marriage. The court also explained its deviation from the presumptive guidelines award in its decision (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [5-a] [d] [3]). Under the circumstances “the amount awarded is a proper accommodation between the reasonable needs of [the wife] and the financial ability of [the husband], while taking into consideration the pre-separation standard of living” (Brown v Brown, 123 AD3d 596, 596 [1st Dept 2014]).

The court also providently exercised its discretion in awarding the wife $175,000 in counsel fees, pendente lite, upon its determination that the husband was in a better position to bear the cost of her legal fees at that time under Domestic Relations Law § 237 (Bricker v Powers, 208 AD2d 463 [1st Dept 1994]). Regardless, it is “well settled that a speedy trial is plaintiff’s proper remedy in this situation” (id. at 463).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.R, Andrias, Moskowitz, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 950, 147 A.D.3d 467, 46 N.Y.S.3d 598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turret-v-turret-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack