Opinion
February 6, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.).
The husband's remedy for any inequity in the reduction of weekly maintenance to $500, instead of $400 as requested, is a speedy trial. The husband's claim that he made a payment of temporary maintenance for which he was not credited is unsupported by any documentation, and his other claims concerning the amount of the arrears are unsubstantiated as well. The IAS Court correctly found that husband's excuses for not being able to serve his motion for a downward modification earlier than he did does not amount to good cause warranting retroactivity to a date earlier than the making of the motion. The husband's claim that the parties' residences should be sold pendente lite was considered and rejected on a prior appeal ( 174 A.D.2d 428), and we see no reason to depart from that ruling.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.