Opinion
2012-04-17
Raquel McMAHON, respondent, v. Morgan McMAHON, appellant.
Mejias Milgrim & Alvarado, P.C., Glen Cove, N.Y. (David L. Mejias of counsel), for appellant. Donald O'Sullivan, New York, N.Y., for respondent.
Mejias Milgrim & Alvarado, P.C., Glen Cove, N.Y. (David L. Mejias of counsel), for appellant. Donald O'Sullivan, New York, N.Y., for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, SHERI S. ROMAN, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Palmieri, J.), dated February 17, 2011, as granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for an award of pendente lite relief directing him (1) to pay the plaintiff maintenance in the sum of $26,000 per year, child support in the sum of $28,920 per year, and arrears on those awards retroactive to November 8, 2010, (2) to maintain life insurance payments, (3) to pay 84% of unreimbursed medical expenses and copays for the children, and (4) to pay interim counsel fees in the sum of $5,000.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
“Modifications of pendente lite awards should rarely be made by an appellate court and then only under exigent circumstances, such as where a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations, or justice otherwise requires” ( Malik v. Malik, 66 A.D.3d 968, 968, 886 N.Y.S.2d 826 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Conyea v. Conyea, 81 A.D.3d 869, 917 N.Y.S.2d 874; Avello v. Avello, 72 A.D.3d 850, 899 N.Y.S.2d 337; Nealis v. Nealis, 71 A.D.3d 851, 895 N.Y.S.2d 880; Maksoud v. Maksoud, 71 A.D.3d 643, 896 N.Y.S.2d 387). Any perceived inequities in pendente lite support can best be remedied by a speedy trial, at which the parties' financial circumstances can be fully explored ( see Avello v. Avello, 72 A.D.3d 850, 899 N.Y.S.2d 337; Levy v. Levy, 72 A.D.3d 651, 897 N.Y.S.2d 910; Nealis v. Nealis, 71 A.D.3d 851, 895 N.Y.S.2d 880; Maksoud v. Maksoud, 71 A.D.3d 643, 896 N.Y.S.2d 387; Swickle v. Swickle, 47 A.D.3d 704, 705, 850 N.Y.S.2d 487).
The defendant did not meet his burden of demonstrating exigent circumstances so as to warrant modification of the pendente lite award. Accordingly, the award will not be disturbed.