Opinion
March 10, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.).
The record establishes that the defendant husband, of his own volition, has not resided in the marital home since September 1983. He admits that he now lives in Connecticut and intends to reside there in the future. Moreover, he also has several other alternative residences available, and would not suffer any disruption from an award of temporary exclusive possession to the wife. The plaintiff on the other hand, persuasively argues that his return to the marital home would engender unnecessary domestic strife.
Under these circumstances, the trial court should not have denied the wife's request for interim exclusive occupancy of the marital home. In light of defendant's lengthy and continued absence from the home and the potential strain and turmoil which would result from his return, we award the plaintiff interim exclusive occupancy. (Delli Venneri v. Delli Venneri, 120 A.D.2d 238; Wolfe v. Wolfe, 111 A.D.2d 809.)
We have examined the other points raised on this appeal and cross appeal and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Milonas, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.