Wolf v. Wolf

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wolf v. Wolf

291 A.D.2d 491, 738 N.Y.S.2d 226, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1873

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 291 A.D.2d 491 (Wolf v. Wolf) 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

Wolf v. Wolf, 291 A.D.2d 491, 738 N.Y.S.2d 226, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1873 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scancarelli, J.), dated July 5, 2000, as, upon reargument and renewal of two orders of the same court dated January 12, 2000, and January 13, 2000, respectively, denied his motion to modify an award of pendente lite child support and maintenance, and granted the plaintiff wife’s cross motion to (1) enter a judgment against him in the amount of $2,400 for child support arrears, (2) direct him to pay her $2,500 on or before April 20, 2000, representing an award of counsel fees relating to the instant motion and cross motion, (3) direct him to contribute toward the undergraduate tuition, room and board, and related expenses of the parties’ child, and (4) direct him to reinstate and maintain a life insurance policy insuring his life, with a death benefit in the amount of $500,000, naming the plaintiff wife as beneficiary pending trial of the action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The purpose of a pendente lite award is to “tide over the more needy party, not to determine the correct ultimate distribution” (Valente v Valente, 269 AD2d 389, 390 [internal quotation marks omitted]; Yecies v Yecies, 108 AD2d 813, 814). Moreover, any perceived inequities in a pendente lite award are best remedied by a speedy trial where the financial circumstances of the parties can be fully explored (see, Valente v Valente, supra; Roach v Roach, 193 AD2d 660). Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the Supreme Court properly considered the parties’ relative financial status and providently exercised its discretion in its award of pendente lite child support and maintenance to the plaintiff.

[492]*492The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., Smith, S. Miller and Cozier, 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 an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scancarelli, J.), dated July 5, 2000, as, upon reargument and renewal of two orders of the same court dated January 12, 2000, and January 13, 2000, respectively, denied his motion to modify an award of pendente lite child support and maintenance, and granted the plaintiff wife’s cross motion to (1) enter a judgment against him in the amount of $2,400 for child support arrears, (2) direct him to pay her $2,500 on or before April 20, 2000, representing an award of counsel fees relating to the instant motion and cross motion, (3) direct him to contribute toward the undergraduate tuition, room and board, and related expenses of the parties’ child, and (4) direct him to reinstate and maintain a life insurance policy insuring his life, with a death benefit in the amount of $500,000, naming the plaintiff wife as beneficiary pending trial of the action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The purpose of a pendente lite award is to “tide over the more needy party, not to determine the correct ultimate distribution” (Valente v Valente, 269 AD2d 389, 390 [internal quotation marks omitted]; Yecies v Yecies, 108 AD2d 813, 814). Moreover, any perceived inequities in a pendente lite award are best remedied by a speedy trial where the financial circumstances of the parties can be fully explored (see, Valente v Valente, supra; Roach v Roach, 193 AD2d 660). Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the Supreme Court properly considered the parties’ relative financial status and providently exercised its discretion in its award of pendente lite child support and maintenance to the plaintiff.

[492]*492The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., Smith, S. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 491, 738 N.Y.S.2d 226, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolf-v-wolf-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack