Tzu Ching Kao v. Bonalle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tzu Ching Kao v. Bonalle

2016 NY Slip Op 8222, 145 A.D.3d 703, 43 N.Y.S.3d 431

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

DecidedDecember 7, 2016

Docket2014-11919

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 8222 (Tzu Ching Kao v. Bonalle) 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

Tzu Ching Kao v. Bonalle, 2016 NY Slip Op 8222, 145 A.D.3d 703, 43 N.Y.S.3d 431 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the plaintiff from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pam Jackman Brown, J.), dated October 16, 2014. The order, inter alia, granted those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for an award of pendente lite child support and maintenance only to the extent of awarding the sums of $4,887.50 per month and $1,965.12 per month, respectively.

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

The parties were married in 2007 and have one child. In 2013, the plaintiff commenced this action for a divorce and ancillary relief. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court, *704 inter alia, granted those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for an award of pendente lite child support and maintenance to the extent of awarding her the sums of $4,887.50 per month and $1,965.12 per month, respectively. The plaintiff appeals, arguing, among other things, that she is entitled to an increased pendente lite award.

“ ‘Modifications of pendente lite awards should rarely be made by an appellate court and then only under exigent circumstances, such as where a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations, or justice otherwise requires’ ” (Ye-rushalmi v Yerushalmi, 136 AD3d 809, 811 [2016], quoting Dowd v Dowd, 74 AD3d 1013, 1014 [2010]). Any perceived inequities in pendente lite maintenance can best be remedied by a speedy trial, at which the parties’ financial circumstances can be fully explored (see Dowd v Dowd, 74 AD3d at 1014; Swickle v Swickle, 47 AD3d 704, 705 [2008]).

Here, although it appears that the parties’ obligations may warrant adjustment when a final award is made (see Domestic Relations Law §§ 236 [B] [5-a] [c] [1] [d]; 240 [1-b] [b] [5] [vii] [C]), the plaintiff has not demonstrated the existence of exigent circumstances warranting a modification of the pendente lite maintenance and child support awards.

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is without merit.

Dillon, J.R, Dickerson, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the plaintiff from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pam Jackman Brown, J.), dated October 16, 2014. The order, inter alia, granted those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for an award of pendente lite child support and maintenance only to the extent of awarding the sums of $4,887.50 per month and $1,965.12 per month, respectively.

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

The parties were married in 2007 and have one child. In 2013, the plaintiff commenced this action for a divorce and ancillary relief. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court, *704 inter alia, granted those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for an award of pendente lite child support and maintenance to the extent of awarding her the sums of $4,887.50 per month and $1,965.12 per month, respectively. The plaintiff appeals, arguing, among other things, that she is entitled to an increased pendente lite award.

“ ‘Modifications of pendente lite awards should rarely be made by an appellate court and then only under exigent circumstances, such as where a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations, or justice otherwise requires’ ” (Ye-rushalmi v Yerushalmi, 136 AD3d 809, 811 [2016], quoting Dowd v Dowd, 74 AD3d 1013, 1014 [2010]). Any perceived inequities in pendente lite maintenance can best be remedied by a speedy trial, at which the parties’ financial circumstances can be fully explored (see Dowd v Dowd, 74 AD3d at 1014; Swickle v Swickle, 47 AD3d 704, 705 [2008]).

Here, although it appears that the parties’ obligations may warrant adjustment when a final award is made (see Domestic Relations Law §§ 236 [B] [5-a] [c] [1] [d]; 240 [1-b] [b] [5] [vii] [C]), the plaintiff has not demonstrated the existence of exigent circumstances warranting a modification of the pendente lite maintenance and child support awards.

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is without merit.

Dillon, J.R, Dickerson, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 8222, 145 A.D.3d 703, 43 N.Y.S.3d 431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tzu-ching-kao-v-bonalle-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack