Opinion
July 25, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Stuart Ain, J.).
The court properly exercised its discretion in granting the restraining order in order to maintain the status quo ( Girardi v Girardi, 140 A.D.2d 486), where, as here, there was documentation that defendant had encumbered and threatened to further encumber the marital property which would prejudice plaintiff's equitable distribution claim ( Rogers v. Rogers, 161 A.D.2d 754).
The court also properly awarded plaintiff interim counsel fees necessary to carry on the action, taking into account the circumstances of the case and respective financial positions of the parties (Domestic Relations Law § 237; see, Ahern v. Ahern, 94 A.D.2d 53). Indigency is not required where, as here, there is a disparity in the parties' income ( Cole v. Cole, 182 A.D.2d 738). Nor is an evidentiary hearing required prior to making an interim award ( Flach v. Flach, 114 A.D.2d 929). Expert fees were also properly awarded upon submission of affidavits specifying the services to be rendered and cost ( Coppola v. Coppola, 129 A.D.2d 760, 762), where the business assets are of a complex nature ( Maratea v. Maratea, 103 A.D.2d 799).
Given plaintiff's prior luxurious lifestyle and the length of the marriage, the record supports the indicated increase in the award of temporary maintenance, whose purpose is to maintain the status of the parties as far as can be accurately ascertained.
We have considered the parties' remaining arguments for affirmative relief and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.