From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Grogg v. Grogg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 6, 1989
152 A.D.2d 802 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

July 6, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Warren County (Dier, J.).


In this divorce action, plaintiff appeals from a pendente lite order which granted defendant's motion for exclusive occupancy of the marital home and further ordered plaintiff to pay temporary child support of $125 weekly. In her affidavits, defendant has alleged that plaintiff broke into the marital home during her absence and removed furniture, appliances, tools, camping equipment and some personal possessions belonging to her and their son. She has also alleged serious marital discord and financial need.

Ordinarily, exclusive possession of a marital residence will not be ordered unless there is a showing that such possession is necessary to protect the safety of persons or property (Kilmer v Kilmer, 109 A.D.2d 1004; Freihofer v Freihofer, 91 A.D.2d 815; Gandelman v Gandelman, 90 A.D.2d 494; Hite v Hite, 89 A.D.2d 577; Vallet v Vallet, 86 A.D.2d 741). However, the standard for granting exclusive possession is not so inflexible as to exclude any circumstances warranting judicial intervention (Delli Venneri v Delli Venneri, 120 A.D.2d 238). The presence of marital strife can be a recognized standard for an award of exclusive possession (supra, at 240; see also, Wolfe v Wolfe, 111 A.D.2d 809). On the facts adduced, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion for Supreme Court to award defendant exclusive possession of the marital home prior to trial (cf., Scampoli v Scampoli, 37 A.D.2d 614).

Nor do we find evidence sufficient to hold that Supreme Court abused its discretion in awarding child support of $125 per week on a temporary basis. Defendant has alleged her financial need and that of her son, as well as plaintiff's ability to pay child support. It has been consistently held that the best solution for perceived inequities in pendente lite support is an early trial (Schlosberg v Schlosberg, 130 A.D.2d 735; Harrilal v Harrilal, 128 A.D.2d 502; Berger v Berger, 125 A.D.2d 285).

Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P.J., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Grogg v. Grogg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 6, 1989
152 A.D.2d 802 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Grogg v. Grogg

Case Details

Full title:WANZEL J. GROGG, Appellant, v. ANTOINETTE M. GROGG, Respondent

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

Date published: Jul 6, 1989

Citations

152 A.D.2d 802 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
543 N.Y.S.2d 582

Citing Cases

T.H. v. G.M.

However, the standard for granting exclusive possession is not so inflexible as to exclude any circumstances…

T.D.F. v. T.F.

The court notes that, whether this is because the husband does so during the time reserved for the wife to…