From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baxter v. Baxter

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Jun 29, 2018
162 A.D.3d 1743 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

Opinion

784 CAF 18–00033

06-29-2018

Margaret BAXTER, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Franklin R. BAXTER, Defendant–Respondent.

FINUCANE & HARTZELL, LLP, PITTSFORD, MICHAEL STEINBERG, ROCHESTER, FOR PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT. MULDOON, GETZ & RESTON, ROCHESTER (GARY MULDOON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT.


FINUCANE & HARTZELL, LLP, PITTSFORD, MICHAEL STEINBERG, ROCHESTER, FOR PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT.

MULDOON, GETZ & RESTON, ROCHESTER (GARY MULDOON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this action for divorce and ancillary relief, plaintiff, as limited by her brief, appeals from that part of a temporary order that imputed income to her for the purposes of calculating child support and directed defendant to pay pendente lite child support. We note that the temporary order directs defendant to pay a basic monthly amount of child support and to contribute to the statutory add-on expenses (see Domestic Relations Law § 240[1–b][c][4], [5] ). We affirm. The best remedy for "any claimed inequity in awards of temporary alimony, child support or maintenance is a speedy trial where the respective finances of the parties can be ascertained and a permanent award based on the evidence may be made" ( Tabor v. Tabor, 39 A.D.2d 640, 640, 331 N.Y.S.2d 102 [4th Dept. 1972] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Annexstein v. Annexstein, 202 A.D.2d 1060, 1061, 609 N.Y.S.2d 131 [4th Dept. 1994] ; Frost v. Frost, 38 A.D.2d 786, 787, 328 N.Y.S.2d 77 [4th Dept. 1972] ). "Absent compelling circumstances, parties to a matrimonial action should not seek review of an order for temporary support" ( Newman v. Newman, 89 A.D.2d 1058, 1058, 454 N.Y.S.2d 689 [4th Dept. 1982] ; see Hageman v. Hageman, 154 A.D.2d 948, 948–949, 546 N.Y.S.2d 1004 [4th Dept. 1989] ). Plaintiff has failed to allege the existence of compelling circumstances warranting review of the award of pendente lite child support (see generally Newman, 89 A.D.2d at 1058, 454 N.Y.S.2d 689 ).


Summaries of

Baxter v. Baxter

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Jun 29, 2018
162 A.D.3d 1743 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
Case details for

Baxter v. Baxter

Case Details

Full title:Margaret BAXTER, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Franklin R. BAXTER…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Date published: Jun 29, 2018

Citations

162 A.D.3d 1743 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
162 A.D.3d 1743

Citing Cases

Rifkin v. Ilecki

Thus, contrary to defendant's contention, Supreme Court was "not required to calculate [defendant's pendente…