From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ross v. Ross

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 8, 1990
157 A.D.2d 652 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

January 8, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Di Noto, J.).


Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by (1) deleting therefrom the provision directing that the pendente lite maintenance payments be retroactive to the date of the referral of the motion to Justice Di Noto, and substituting therefor a provision directing that the pendente lite maintenance payments be retroactive to the time of the defendant's application therefor, and (2) deleting the provision denying the branch of her motion which was for an award of interim attorney's fees and substituting therefor a provision granting an award of interim attorney's fees in the sum of $1,500; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

An award of temporary maintenance is designed to assure that the financial needs of a matrimonial litigant will be met during the pendency of the litigation and is not intended to reflect what the ultimate resolution of the parties' financial dispute should be (see generally, McCarthy v. McCarthy, 156 A.D.2d 346; Strong v. Strong, 142 A.D.2d 810, 812; Crowley v. Crowley, 120 A.D.2d 559; Fagelbaum v. Fagelbaum, 115 A.D.2d 454). Since the defendant, who is still relatively young, now lives in a house concededly owned by her parents, we find that the Supreme Court's award of pendente lite maintenance was sufficient. However, the Supreme Court erred in failing to make the maintenance award retroactive to the date of the defendant's application (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]; [7] [a]; Bernstein v Bernstein, 143 A.D.2d 168; Dooley v. Dooley, 128 A.D.2d 669).

Finally, considering the merits of the defendant's position on the various issues presented in this case, and considering particularly the relative simplicity of the economic issues, along with all the other and relevant circumstances (see, DeCabrera v. Cabrera-Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d 879), we find that an award of interim attorney's fees is warranted, but only to the extent indicated. Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Ross v. Ross

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 8, 1990
157 A.D.2d 652 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Ross v. Ross

Case Details

Full title:ALAN ROSS, Respondent, v. PATRICIA ROSS, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 8, 1990

Citations

157 A.D.2d 652 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
549 N.Y.S.2d 752

Citing Cases

Nappi v. Nappi

The pendente lite order directed the husband to pay the carrying charges. This order was effective as of the…

Hatem v. Anthony

Given the limited scope of the defendant's notice of appeal, his contentions concerning the Supreme Court's…