From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Khazaneh v. Khazaneh

Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 29, 2023
217 A.D.3d 629 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

Opinion

582 Index No. 365144/21 Case No. 2023–00101

06-29-2023

Heather KHAZANEH, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Amir Ali KHAZANEH, Defendant–Respondent.

The Law Offices of Daniel B. Nottes, PLLC, New York (Daniel B. Nottes of counsel), for appellant. Schlissel Ostrow Karabatos, PLLC, Garden City (Joseph A. DeMarco of counsel), for respondent.


The Law Offices of Daniel B. Nottes, PLLC, New York (Daniel B. Nottes of counsel), for appellant.

Schlissel Ostrow Karabatos, PLLC, Garden City (Joseph A. DeMarco of counsel), for respondent.

Kapnick, J.P., Friedman, Gesmer, Gonza´lez, Higgitt, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Douglas E. Hoffman, J), entered on or about November 2, 2022, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied, in part, plaintiff wife's motion for pendente lite relief insofar as it awarded her $17,000 per month of the requested $64,956 in interim maintenance and directed her to pay 30% of the carrying costs of the marital residence from that amount, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is no basis for disturbing the court's award of temporary maintenance. In calculating the award, the court correctly applied the formula set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(5–a) (see Khaira v. Khaira, 93 A.D.3d 194, 197, 938 N.Y.S.2d 513 [1st Dept. 2012] ). The court considered numerous statutory factors and found that the statutory presumptive or guideline amount of temporary maintenance of $5,075 per month was "unjust or inappropriate" ( Domestic Relations Law § 236[B] [5–a] [h][1] ). The court set forth the amount of the unadjusted presumptive award, the factors it considered, and the reasons that it adjusted the presumptive award. There are no exigent circumstances present. The wife's remedy for any perceived inequities in the pendente lite award is a speedy trial (see Lesser v. Lesser, 203 A.D.3d 466, 466, 164 N.Y.S.3d 590 [1st Dept. 2022] ).

As maintenance awards are intended to include all basic living expenses, including housing costs, the court's directing the wife to pay a proportionate amount of her maintenance income to cover a share of the carrying costs of the marital residence was not in error (see Blake v. Blake, 164 A.D.3d 1111, 1112, 84 N.Y.S.3d 62 [1st Dept. 2018] ; Severny v. Severny, 210 A.D.3d 419, 419, 175 N.Y.S.3d 729 [1st Dept. 2022] ; Francis v. Francis, 111 A.D.3d 454, 455, 975 N.Y.S.2d 13 [1st Dept. 2013] ).

We have considered the wife's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Khazaneh v. Khazaneh

Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 29, 2023
217 A.D.3d 629 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)
Case details for

Khazaneh v. Khazaneh

Case Details

Full title:Heather Khazaneh, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Amir Ali Khazaneh…

Court:Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 29, 2023

Citations

217 A.D.3d 629 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)
190 N.Y.S.3d 75
2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 3547

Citing Cases

C.M. v. G.M.

Generally, housing costs are "encompassed in the maintenance and child support awards." (Blake v Blake, 164…