Opinion
April 26, 1971
In an action for divorce, plaintiff appeals from: (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered February 11, 1971, which awarded to defendant, pendente lite, alimony of $200 per week, counsel fees of $2,500, and directed plaintiff to pay all carrying charges on the marital residence, and (2) an order of the same court, entered March 2, 1971, upon reargument, which adhered to the original order. Appeal from original order dismissed, without costs. That order was superseded by the order made on reargument. Order made on reargument modified by adding thereto a provision striking out the award to defendant of $200 per week for her support and maintenance, as granted by the original order, and by denying defendant's motion for temporary alimony. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the elimination of the award of $200 a week temporary alimony to defendant is warranted because the record indicates that defendant failed fully to disclose all of her income. Furthermore, the record indicates that her income is sufficient to enable her to support herself until the time of trial, at which time her entitlement to alimony, if any, will be fixed by the trial court in the light of all the facts and circumstances relevant thereto. Upon the instant record, defendant failed to show genuine necessity for the award to her of temporary alimony ( Katzman v. Katzman, 28 A.D.2d 1134; Light v. Light, 29 A.D.2d 540; Weinberg v. Weinberg, 23 A.D.2d 569). Any seeming inequity with respect to temporary alimony may be solved by resort to a speedy trial ( Lebovics v. Lebovics, 34 A.D.2d 783; Tobias v. Tobias, 36 A.D.2d 643). The determination on this appeal is not to be construed by the Trial Justice as precluding defendant from any award of permanent alimony. This action should proceed to trial promptly. Latham, Acting P.J., Shapiro, Gulotta, Christ and Benjamin, JJ., concur.