From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Beckwith v. Beckwith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 16, 1983
95 A.D.2d 943 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Opinion

June 16, 1983


Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Ford, J.), entered December 20, 1982 in Essex County, which, inter alia, granted defendant's motion for an order pendente lite for temporary maintenance of $300 per week. The sole issue on this appeal is whether defendant is entitled to an award of temporary maintenance. The parties were married in 1957 and have two sons, ages 23 and 18, both in college. Since 1958, defendant has been a housewife and has not been employed. Plaintiff has a yearly salary of $44,500 as president of AuSable Valley Telephone Company and, according to his financial affidavit, he has sole ownership of assets worth $127,793. The parties jointly own household furnishings, $30,000 worth of stock in AuSable Valley Telephone Company, and a bank account currently containing $4,000. Defendant has sole ownership of $10,000 in a money market account which produces annual income of approximately $1,000. Following Special Term's grant of defendant's motion for $300 per week temporary maintenance, plaintiff appealed. Plaintiff contends that defendant is not entitled to temporary maintenance because she could liquidate her $10,000 money market account and, therefore, is not destitute. There is, however, no requirement that a spouse invade her limited capital in order to meet her reasonable needs pending trial where it appears that the other party has sufficient property or income to provide for her ( Hyman v. Hyman, 56 A.D.2d 337, 338; Walker v. Walker, 18 A.D.2d 684; see, also, Domestic Relations Law, § 236, Part B, subd 6, par a; Matter of Lois R. v. Richard R., 98 Misc.2d 580, 587, affd 73 A.D.2d 843). Considering the parties' respective property, income and reasonable needs, Special Term properly awarded temporary maintenance. A prompt trial is the preferable way to resolve any claimed inequities in the award ( Baranyk v. Baranyk, 73 A.D.2d 1004, 1005). The order should be affirmed. Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P.J., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Beckwith v. Beckwith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 16, 1983
95 A.D.2d 943 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)
Case details for

Beckwith v. Beckwith

Case Details

Full title:DAVID H. BECKWITH, Appellant, v. HELEN D. BECKWITH, Respondent

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

Date published: Jun 16, 1983

Citations

95 A.D.2d 943 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Citing Cases

Lewis v. Lewis

Moreover, there is ample authority that the appropriate manner in which to resolve any alleged inequities in…

Lehman v. Lehman

Any alleged inequities in the court's award should be resolved by means of an expeditious trial. ( McKee v…