Opinion
May 16, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.).
Ordered that the order is modified by deleting that provision which denied the branch of the defendant's cross motion which sought a specific schedule for visitation and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a determination setting forth a specific schedule for visitation pendente lite.
The Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the plaintiff the aggregate sum of $210 per week as temporary maintenance and child support. Due consideration was given to the needs of the plaintiff and the children and the defendant's financial ability to provide for those needs (see, Richards v Richards, 130 A.D.2d 642; Stern v Stern, 106 A.D.2d 631; Van Ess v Van Ess, 100 A.D.2d 848).
We further find, based upon the financial information submitted thus far, that the Supreme Court did not err in requiring that the defendant pay for certain expenses associated with the upkeep of the marital residence, pending final resolution of this action.
Equally unavailing is the defendant's contention that the court erroneously restrained him from disposing of certain marital assets, to wit, the parties' restaurant, pending further direction of the court. The court acted providently in attempting to preserve the status quo with an aim toward ensuring that the marital assets will, ultimately, be equitably divided in accordance with the standards enunciated in the Domestic Relations Law, after the subject property has been fairly appraised (see, Chosed v Chosed, 116 A.D.2d 690; see also, Schlosberg v Schlosberg, 130 A.D.2d 735). We note that the aforementioned provision does not preclude the sale of the restaurant but merely requires court approval thereof.
We find, however, that the Supreme Court should not have declined to set forth a specific schedule for visitation pendente lite (see, Pincus v Pincus, 138 A.D.2d 687; Mahler v Mahler, 72 A.D.2d 739; Eylman v Eylman, 23 A.D.2d 495). Accordingly, the order appealed from is modified to the extent indicated above. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.