Opinion
April 13, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.).
Ordered that the order is modified, on the law and as an exercise of discretion, by deleting therefrom the provision which granted that branch of the motion which was for an injunction barring the appellant from disposing of any assets pendente lite, and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Under the circumstances of this case, we do not find the pendente lite award of maintenance to have been an improvident exercise of discretion. The amount awarded was based upon the defendant's reasonable needs. Out of the sum awarded, the defendant was to pay for essentially all expenses, including those for the marital residence and the parties' Florida condominium. At no time has the plaintiff ever claimed that he cannot pay the award (see, Ciaccio v Ciaccio, 162 A.D.2d 494; Salerno v Salerno, 142 A.D.2d 670; Purpura v Purpura, 123 A.D.2d 678; Pieri v Pieri, 91 A.D.2d 1016). That the defendant has assets of her own which generate some income does not warrant a contrary conclusion in this case, considering the parties' respective financial situations, the defendant's ill health, and the unlikely prospect that she will ever be able to re-enter the workforce (see, Beckwith v Beckwith, 95 A.D.2d 943). Any perceived inequity in the award can be remedied by proceeding expeditiously to trial (see, Samuelson v Samuelson, 124 A.D.2d 650, 651).
However, in the absence of any evidence that the plaintiff had committed, or had threatened to commit, any act which would prejudice the defendant's right to equitable distribution, the court should not have granted an injunction pendente lite against the disposition of assets except in the ordinary course of business (see, Fakiris v Fakiris, 177 A.D.2d 540; Barasch v Barasch, 166 A.D.2d 399; Rogers v Rogers, 161 A.D.2d 754; Cohen v Cohen, 142 A.D.2d 543). Accordingly, we have modified the order appealed from by deleting that provision and denying that branch of the defendant's motion which was for an injunction pendente lite against the disposition of assets. Thompson, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and Copertino, JJ., concur.