Campanaro
v.
Campanaro

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second DepartmentMar 5, 2002
292 A.D.2d 330 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
292 A.D.2d 330738 N.Y.S.2d 74

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • DeVerna v. DeVerna

    …DECISION ORDER ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. "Pendente lite awards…

  • Siskind v. Siskind

    …es of the parties, their ability to pay, the nature and extent of the services rendered, the complexity of…

lock 26 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

2001-07712

Submitted January 28, 2002.

March 5, 2002.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Blydenburgh, J.), dated June 1, 2001, as awarded the defendant wife $200 per week pendente lite maintenance, $6,000 in accountant fees, and $7,500 in interim counsel fees.

Seth Muraskin, Melville, N.Y. (Matthew Muraskin of counsel), for appellant.

Carl F. Wand, Huntington, N.Y. (Chad M. Powers of counsel), for respondent.

Before: SONDRA MILLER, J.P., DANIEL F. LUCIANO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


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

Pendente lite awards should reflect an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse with due regard for the parties' preseparation standard of living (see, Landau v. Landau, 258 A.D.2d 508, 509; Piali v. Piali, 247 A.D.2d 455, 456; Shapiro v. Shapiro, 163 A.D.2d 294, 296). Modifications of pendente lite awards should be sparingly made and then only under exigent circumstances such as where a party is unable to meet his or her own needs, or the interests of justice otherwise require relief (see, Einhart v. Einhart, 278 A.D.2d 360; Rich v. Rich, 259 A.D.2d 478). Rather, perceived inequities in pendente lite orders are best addressed via a speedy trial at which the parties' economic circumstances may be thoroughly explored (see, Gorman v. Gorman, 286 A.D.2d 475, 476; Menashi v. Menashi, 281 A.D.2d 522, 523; Rigaglia v. Rigaglia, 277 A.D.2d 216, 217).

In light of, inter alia, the parties' disparate economic circumstances, the award of pendente lite maintenance, expert accountant fees, and counsel fees was a provident exercise of discretion (see, Ferdinand v. Ferdinand, 289 A.D.2d 195 [2d Dept., Dec. 3, 2001]; Palamara v. Palamara, 279 A.D.2d 559; Landau v. Landau, supra, at 509).

S. MILLER, J.P., LUCIANO, SCHMIDT and CRANE, JJ., concur.