Opinion
January 30, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.).
The parties' intention to reconcile and abandon their separation agreement was established by proof of their resumption of the marital relationship by unequivocal acts ( see, Lippman v Lippman, 192 A.D.2d 1060, 1061), including their living together and resuming marital relations, their selling of their separate apartments and purchase of a new apartment, plaintiff's quitting her job and resuming a role as a housewife such as by traveling with and attending defendant's social and business gatherings, defendant's giving plaintiff a weekly allowance to pay for their joint household expenses, and their filing of joint tax returns and stating thereon that they were married ( Pasquale v Pasquale, 210 A.D.2d 387). The award itself represents a reasonable accommodation, based on conflicting proofs, between the plaintiff's needs and defendant's ability to provide for those needs. The remedy for any inequities in the award is a prompt trial where the parties' financial status can be more accurately evaluated ( Cohen v Cohen, 208 A.D.2d 482; Aron v Aron, 216 A.D.2d 98; Rothberg v Rothberg, 174 A.D.2d 359).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Nardelli, Williams and Tom, JJ.