Berlly v. Berlly

8 Citing cases

  1. Silla v. Silla

    228 A.D.3d 969 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)   Cited 2 times

    However, the propriety of a pendente lite order of child support may not be reviewed on an appeal from the judgment, of divorce (see Badwal v. Badwal, 126 A.D.3d 736, 737, 5 N.Y.S.3d 487; Anderson v. Anderson, 50 A.D.3d 610, 855 N.Y.S.2d 194; Samuelsen v. Samuelsen, 124 A.D.2d 650, 508 N.Y.S.2d 36). In any event, it is the general rule that the proper remedy for any perceived inequity in a pendente lite award is a speedy trial (see Berlly v. Berlly, 237 A.D.2d 553, 553-554, 655 N.Y.S.2d 989; Samuelsenv. Samuelson, 124 A.D.2d at 652, 508 N.Y.S.2d 36). Here, the trial has been completed, and the judgment of divorce has been issued.

  2. Silla v. Silla

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 3507 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    However, the propriety of a pendente lite order of child support may not be reviewed on an appeal from the judgment of divorce (see Badwal v Badwal, 126 A.D.3d 736, 737; Anderson v Anderson, 50 A.D.3d 610; Samuelsen v Samuelsen, 124 A.D.2d 650). In any event, it is the general rule that the proper remedy for any perceived inequity in a pendente lite award is a speedy trial (see Berlly v Berlly, 237 A.D.2d 553, 553-554; Samuelsen v Samuelsen, 124 A.D.2d at 652). Here, the trial has been completed, and the judgment of divorce has been issued.

  3. Anderson v. Anderson

    50 A.D.3d 610 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

    The propriety of so much of the order dated April 19, 2005, as awarded the wife pendente lite child support is not reviewed on the accompanying appeal from the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5501 ( see Samuelsen v Samuelsen, 124 AD2d 650, 652). In any event, it is the general rule that the proper remedy for any perceived inequity in a pendente lite award is a speedy trial, at which the financial circumstances of the parties can be fully explored ( see Berlly v Berlly, 237 AD2d 553, 553-554; Samuelsen v Samuelsen, 124 AD2d 650, 652; see also Prasinos v Prasinos, 283 AD2d 913, 914). Here, the trial has been completed and the judgment of divorce entered.

  4. Barone v. Barone

    41 A.D.3d 623 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 6 times

    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 Zheng v Pan, 23 AD3d 378, 379; Aliano v Aliano, 285 AD2d 522; Piali v Piali, 247 AD2d 455, 456; cf. Fruchter v Fruchter, 29 AD3d 942). Moreover, the general rule continues to be that the proper remedy for any perceived inequity in a pendente lite award is a speedy trial ( see Aliano v Aliano, supra; Piali v Piali, supra; Berlly v Berlly, 237 AD2d 553, 553-554). 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, and are to be determined with due regard for the pre-separation standard of living ( see Iannone v Iannone, 31 AD3d 713; Piali v Piali, supra; Berlly v Berlly, supra; Fieland v Fieland, 229 AD2d 465, 465-466).

  5. Siclari v. Siclari

    291 A.D.2d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 9 times
    Invalidating a 1987 agreement as unconscionable

    ORDERED that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs. The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the wife's motion which was for pendente lite counsel fees (see, Anonymous v. Anonymous, 258 A.D.2d 547; Berlly v. Berlly, 237 A.D.2d 553; Kesten v. Kesten, 234 A.D.2d 427; Mitzner v. Mitzner, 228 A.D.2d 483). The Domestic Relations Law authorizes the court, in its discretion, to award an interim counsel fee where, as here, there is a significant disparity in the financial circumstances of the parties, and where it appears that the litigation will be protracted (see, Domestic Relations Law ยง 237[a][5]; DeCabrera v. Cabrera-Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d 879; Ljutic v. Ljutic, 216 A.D.2d 274; Ferdinand v. Ferdinand, 215 A.D.2d 350).

  6. Cerveiti v. Yankowitz

    272 A.D.2d 567 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

    Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. The proper remedy for any perceived inequity in a pendente lite award is a speedy trial ( see, Berlly v. Berlly, 237 A.D.2d 553; Gianni v. Gianni, 172 A.D.2d 487). In any event, the awards were appropriate.

  7. Anonymous v. Anonymous

    258 A.D.2d 547 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)   Cited 10 times

    Ordered that the plaintiff husband is awarded one bill of costs. The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting that branch of the defendant wife's motion which was for pendente lite counsel fees ( see, Berlly v. Berlly, 237 A.D.2d 553; Kesten v. Kesten, 234 A.D.2d 427; Mitzner v. Mitzner, 228 A.D.2d 483). However, the Supreme Court's award of pendente lite counsel fees in the amount of $150,000 is excessive to the extent that it improperly included compensation for legal services rendered in connection with (1) an attack on the parties' prenuptial agreement ( see, Lucci v. Lucci, 227 A.D.2d 387; Sandel v. Sandel, 96 A.D.2d 584; Lamborn v. Lamborn, 56 A.D.2d 623), (2) work performed in a prior 1993 Westchester County action involving the parties ( see, Maloney v. Maloney, 114 A.D.2d 440; Abrusci v. Abrusci, 79 A.D.2d 980), and (3) the application for counsel fees ( see, Matter of Dalessandro v. O'Brien, 248 A.D.2d 468). Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a new determination as to the proper amount of pendente lite counsel fees.

  8. Palazzo v. Palazzo

    250 A.D.2d 827 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

    Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs. Contrary to the defendants contention, the Supreme Courts award of pendente lite support and maintenance to the plaintiff was proper under the circumstances of this case and should not be disturbed on appeal ( see, Wallach v. Wallach, 236 A.D.2d 604; Beige v. Beige, 220 A.D.2d 636). The maintenance payments were not "so prohibitive" as to prevent the defendant from meeting his own financial obligations ( Stanton v. Stanton, 211 A.D.2d 781, 782; see, Androvett v. Androvett, 172 A.D.2d 792). Moreover, the general rule continues to be that the proper remedy for any perceived inequity in a pendente lite award is a speedy trial ( see, Horowitz v. Horowitz, 237 A.D.2d 490; Berlly v. Berlly, 237 A.D.2d 553; Wallach v. Wallach, supra; Beige v. Beige, supra). The defendants remaining contentions are without merit.