From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kay v. Kay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 12, 1996
229 A.D.2d 1025 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

July 12, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, Berler, J.

Present — Green, J.P., Lawton, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The decision regarding an award of expert and counsel fees pendente lite is within the sound discretion of Special Term ( see, Ahern v. Ahern, 94 A.D.2d 53, 58). "Under the circumstances of this case, the best remedy for the perceived inequities in the pendente lite award is a speedy trial at which the disputed issues as to the financial capacity and circumstances of the parties can be fully explored" ( Goldstein v. Shapiro, 208 A.D.2d 676; see, Green v Green, 216 A.D.2d 353; Frankel v. Frankel, 150 A.D.2d 520). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in directing that the determination regarding an award to plaintiff of expert and counsel fees be referred to the trial court ( see, Marohn v. Marohn, 157 A.D.2d 771).


Summaries of

Kay v. Kay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 12, 1996
229 A.D.2d 1025 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Kay v. Kay

Case Details

Full title:DENISE KAY, Appellant, v. JOHN A. KAY, Respondent

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

Date published: Jul 12, 1996

Citations

229 A.D.2d 1025 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
646 N.Y.S.2d 461

Citing Cases

Kay v. Kay

However, the court's ruling was based on an erroneous finding. The appellant had in fact moved on the…