Opinion
2012-05-15
Aubrey CHARASZ, appellant, v. Diana ROZENBLUM, also known as Diana Charasz, respondent. (Action No. 1). Diana Rozenblum–Charasz, respondent, v. Aubrey Charasz, appellant. (Action No. 2).
Hoffman, Polland & Furman, PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Elliot R. Polland and Jessica L. Leonard of counsel), for appellant. Moran, Brodrick & Elliot, Garden City, N.Y. (Thomas A. Elliot and Robert H. Brodrick of counsel), for respondent.
Hoffman, Polland & Furman, PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Elliot R. Polland and Jessica L. Leonard of counsel), for appellant. Moran, Brodrick & Elliot, Garden City, N.Y. (Thomas A. Elliot and Robert H. Brodrick of counsel), for respondent.
, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
In related actions for a divorce and ancillary relief, which were joined for trial, the husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Falanga, J.), entered May 25, 2011, as granted those branches of the wife's motion in Action No. 2 which were for an award of temporary maintenance and to direct him to pay a percentage of the costs associated with sending the parties' children to summer camp.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
As the parties were entitled to commence separate actions for divorce ( see Motler v. Motler, 60 N.Y.2d 244, 245–247, 469 N.Y.S.2d 586, 457 N.E.2d 691;Berger v. Berger, 84 A.D.2d 545, 545–546, 443 N.Y.S.2d 181), the Supreme Court properly applied the new statutory formula set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(5–a) to determine an appropriate award of temporary maintenance pursuant to the wife's application for pendente lite relief, which was made in her separate divorce action, commenced after the effective date of the new statutory formula.
Modifications of pendente lite awards should rarely be made by an appellate court and then only under exigent circumstances, such as when a party cannot meet his or her financial obligations ( see Brody v. Brody, 88 A.D.3d 757, 930 N.Y.S.2d 894;Conyea v. Conyea, 81 A.D.3d 869, 917 N.Y.S.2d 874;Nealis v. Nealis, 71 A.D.3d 851, 852, 895 N.Y.S.2d 880;Oquendo v. Oquendo, 7 A.D.3d 687, 687–688, 776 N.Y.S.2d 505). “ ‘Perceived inequities in pendente lite awards are best remedied by a speedy trial, at which the parties' financial circumstances can be fully explored’ ” ( Brody v. Brody, 88 A.D.3d at 757, 930 N.Y.S.2d 894, quoting Levy v. Levy, 72 A.D.3d 651, 652, 897 N.Y.S.2d 910;see Conyea v. Conyea, 81 A.D.3d at 869, 917 N.Y.S.2d 874;Nealis v. Nealis, 71 A.D.3d at 852, 895 N.Y.S.2d 880;Oquendo v. Oquendo, 7 A.D.3d at 687–688, 776 N.Y.S.2d 505). Here, the husband failed to meet his burden of demonstrating exigent circumstances.
The husband's remaining contention is without merit.