From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

DeVerna v. DeVerna

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 2, 2004
4 A.D.3d 323 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-00272.

Decided February 2, 2004.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Falanga, J.), dated December 16, 2002, as awarded the defendant wife pendente lite maintenance in the sum of $2,000 per month, pendente lite child support in the sum of $1,150 per month, and an interim counsel fee in the sum of $5,000, and as directed him to pay the defendant wife's automobile insurance premiums, 80% of the child's unreimbursed medical expenses, and the minimum monthly loan payments on the parties' joint debt.

Foster Vandenburgh, LLP, Westhampton, N.Y. (Frederic C. Foster and Jill D.W. Daly of counsel), for appellant.

Meredith W. Ayres, Garden City, N.Y., for respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, THOMAS A. ADAMS and STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

"Pendente lite awards should reflect an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse with due regard for the parties' preseparation standard of living" ( Campanaro v. Campanaro, 292 A.D.2d 330; see Landau v. Landau, 258 A.D.2d 508, 509). "An appellate court will rarely modify such an award, unless exigent circumstances exist, such as where a party is unable to meet his or her own financial obligations or justice otherwise requires" ( Taylor v. Taylor, 306 A.D.2d 401). The husband failed to adequately demonstrate that such circumstances exist and, therefore, modification of the award is unwarranted. "Rather, perceived inequities in pendente lite orders are best addressed via a speedy trial at which the parties' economic circumstances may be thoroughly explored" ( Campanaro v. Campanaro, supra at 331; Gorman v. Gorman, 286 A.D.2d 475, 476).

In light of, inter alia, the parties' disparate economic circumstances, the award of an interim counsel fee was also a provident exercise of discretion ( see Domestic Relations Law § 237[a]; O'Shea v. O'Shea, 93 N.Y.2d 187, 193; Shanon v. Patterson, 294 A.D.2d 485, 486).

SANTUCCI, J.P., SCHMIDT, ADAMS and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

DeVerna v. DeVerna

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 2, 2004
4 A.D.3d 323 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

DeVerna v. DeVerna

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES J. DeVERNA, appellant, v. ROSE ANN DeVERNA, respondent

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

Date published: Feb 2, 2004

Citations

4 A.D.3d 323 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
770 N.Y.S.2d 892

Citing Cases

Zheng v. Pan

Any inequities perceived by the defendant can best be remedied by a speedy trial ( see Oquendo v. Oquendo,…

Swickle v. Swickle

The purpose of a pendente lite award is to "tide over the more needy party" ( Jordan v Jordan, 2 AD3d 687,…