Opinion
January 14, 1999.
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Fern Fisher-Brandveen, J.).
The motion court's directive in this matrimonial action, requiring defendant to pay litigation expenses incurred by reason of plaintiff's election to call as a witness her treating medical specialist, was entirely proper. The specialist's testimony was highly relevant to plaintiff's case and plaintiff herself did not have the funds to pay the specialist for the many hours of professional time his testimony's preparation and delivery entailed. Accordingly, since the contested., interim award was necessary to enable plaintiff adequately to present her case and, thus; to prevent defendant from obtaining an undue advantage in the litigation by reason of his superior economic resources, the award was not merely authorized by Domestic Relations Law § 237 Dom. Rel., but essential to the achievement of its ends as between the parties at bar ( see, Wyser-Pratte v. Wyser-Pratte, 160 A.D.2d 290). We note also that even if there had been some inequity in the subject interim award, defendant's proper course under the circumstances would have been to seek a speedy trial of the matrimonial action, in the aftermath of which reallocation of the contested pendente lite award could be sought based upon a complete record ( see, Eisenberg v. Eisenberg, 169 A.D.2d 588).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.