Opinion
October 23, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.).
Ordered that the appeals from the orders dated April 8, 1994, July 1, 1994, and July 28, 1994, respectively, are dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the order entered July 6, 1993, and the judgments are affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.
The appeals from the intermediate orders dated April 8, 1994, July 1, 1994, and July 28, 1994, respectively, must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgments thereon (cf., Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeals from the orders are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeals from the judgments (see, CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).
Modifications of pendente lite awards should rarely be made by an appellate court and then only under exigent circumstances such as where a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations or justice otherwise requires (see, Bagner v Bagner, 207 A.D.2d 367). The general rule continues to be that the proper remedy for any perceived inequity in a pendente lite award is a speedy trial (see, Gianni v. Gianni, 172 A.D.2d 487). As this Court has repeatedly noted, pendente lite awards should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse (see, Polito v. Polito, 168 A.D.2d 440; Shapiro v. Shapiro, 163 A.D.2d 294), and they are to be determined with due regard for the preseparation standard of living (see, Salerno v. Salerno, 142 A.D.2d 670). Based on these considerations, we conclude that the pendente lite award of the Supreme Court is proper under the circumstances of this case and should not be disturbed on appeal.
In addition, the Supreme Court properly awarded appraiser's fees to the plaintiff even though the defendant's corporation had a shareholder's agreement with a provision for valuating shares. The Court of Appeals has held that a shareholder's agreement that fixes the price of stock in a closely held corporation is not conclusive evidence of the value of the stock (see, Amodio v Amodio, 70 N.Y.2d 5). Rather, the shareholder's agreement is only one factor which should be considered in evaluating the value of the stock (see, Amodio v. Amodio, supra).
The Supreme Court properly awarded the plaintiff leave to enter money judgments for arrears in child support and maintenance as the defendant defaulted on his pendente lite support payments without good cause (see, Domestic Relations Law § 244).
There was no material adverse change in the defendant's financial circumstances to support a downward modification (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]). Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.