Opinion
October 17, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, and the motion is denied.
It was an improvident exercise of the Supreme Court's discretion to grant the plaintiff's request for pendente lite appraisal and valuation fees. The purpose of a pendente lite award of expert fees is to enable the moving spouse to carry on or defend the action (see, Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]). The record reveals that the plaintiff, a psychologist, enjoys an annual income of over $85,000 and she did not challenge the defendant's assertion that her 1986 income was as high as $198,000. Upon this record, the plaintiff's contention that she is financially incapable of paying the fees she has requested is simply untenable (see, Katsaros v Katsaros, 133 A.D.2d 611; Cook v Cook, 95 A.D.2d 768; cf., Ahern v Ahern, 94 A.D.2d 53).
In light of our determination, we do not reach the other contentions raised on this appeal. Lawrence, J.P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.