The purpose of a pendente lite award is to provide a needy spouse with funds for his or her support and reasonable needs and those of the children in his or her custody (see Celauro v. Celauro, 257 A.D.2d 588, 589; Pascale v. Pascale, 226 A.D.2d 439, 440; Gold v. Gold, 212 A.D.2d 503). While an award may be modified where a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations (see Hoenig v. Hoenig, 245 A.D.2d 262, 263; Gold v. Gold, supra), the court properly considered the parties' respective incomes in awarding child support (see Eckstein v. Eckstein, 251 A.D.2d 537; Nordgren v. Nordgren, 237 A.D.2d 498).
The Supreme Court granted the defendant's cross motion and, in effect, denied the plaintiff's motions as academic. The Supreme Court properly determined that since the stipulation failed to comply with Domestic Relations Law ยง 240 Dom. Rel.(1-b)(h), those provisions of the stipulation relating to child support were invalid (see, Tartaglia v. Tartaglia, 260 A.D.2d 628; Matter of Bill v. Bill, 214 A.D.2d 84; cf., Nordgren v. Nordgren, 237 A.D.2d 498; [2d Dept., Sept. 27, 1997]). However, the remedy was to vacate only those provisions of the stipulation relating to child support, not to vacate the entire stipulation (see, Sloam v. Sloam, 185 A.D.2d 808; Maser v. Maser, 226 A.D.2d 684; see also, Kolmin v. Kolmin, 65 A.D.2d 928; Sylofski v. Sylofski, 49 A.D.2d 971). The provisions which must be vacated include those requiring the defendant to pay educational and health costs (see, Domestic Relations Law ยงยง 240 Dom. Rel.[1-b][b][1]; 240 Dom. Rel.[1-b][c].
Under the circumstances of this case, including the husband's admitted income of $135,000, the temporary child support award of $450 per week for both of the parties' children was not improper. We note that while a court may properly rely upon the Child Support Standards Act (see, Domestic Relations Law ยง 240 [1-b]) for guidance in fixing pendente lite child, support, it is not required to apply those guidelines (see, Nordgren v. Nordgren, 237 A.D.2d 498; Stanton v. Stanton, 211 A.D.2d 781). Pizzuto, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.
ently exercise its discretion in requiring the plaintiff to pay only $600 a week total for pendente lite maintenance and child support. The court properly considered both the financial needs of the defendant and the parties' respective financial conditions ( see, e.g., Domestic Relations Law ยง 236 [B] [6], [7]; Fascaldi v. Fascaldi, 186 A.D.2d 532; Chachkes v. Chachkes, 107 A.D.2d 786, 787; Van Ess v. Van Ess, 100 A.D.2d 848). The award strikes a proper balance between the reasonable needs of the defendant and the financial ability of the plaintiff to pay ( see, Salerno v. Salerno, 142 A.D.2d 670, 672), taking into account their pre-separation standard of living ( see, Ferdinand v. Ferdinand, 215 A.D.2d 350; Wagner v. Wagner, 175 A.D.2d 391), as well as the defendant's substantial assets ( see, Domestic Relations Law ยง 240 [1-b]; see, e.g., Van Ess v. Van Ess, 100 A.D.2d 848, supra; Dyson v. Dyson, 92 A.D.2d 857; Thea v. Thea, 75 A.D.2d 618; see also, Lapkin v. Lapkin, 208 A.D.2d 474; Nordgren v. Nordgren, 237 A.D.2d 498). Where, as here, a pendente lite award is not deficient, the proper remedy to correct any inequity is a speedy trial, where any error can be rectified on a full record, retroactive to the date of the defendant's application for pendente lite support ( see, e.g., Campanella v. Campanella, 232 A.D.2d 598; Beige v. Beige, 220 A.D.2d 636; Gianni v. Gianni, 172 A.D.2d 487; see also, Nolfo v. Nolfo, 188 A.D.2d 451; cf., Bernstein v. Bernstein, 213 A.D.2d 508; Byer v. Byer, 199 A.D.2d 298; Polito v. Polito, 168 A.D.2d 440). The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
When calculating pendente lite child support the Court may use the Child Support Standards Act as guidance in fashioning an award, however it is not required to apply those guidelines to a temporary award. See Eckstein v. Eckstein , 251 A.D.2d 537, 674 N.Y.S.2d 745 (2d Dept. 1998), See also George v. George , 192 A.D.2d 693, 597 N.Y.S.2d 129 (2d Dept. 1993) ; Nordgren v. Nordgren , 237 A.D.2d 498, 655 N.Y.S.2d 585 (2d Dept. 1997). However, when sufficient financial information is available to the Court, it is preferable to apply the CSSA guidelines.
See Eckstein v. Eckstein, 251 A.D.2d 537, 674 N.Y.S.2d 745 (2d Dept.1998), See also George v. George, 192 A.D.2d 693, 597 N.Y.S.2d 129 (2d Dept.1993) ; Nordgren v. Nordgren, 237 A.D.2d 498, 655 N.Y.S.2d 585 (2d Dept.1997). However, when sufficient financial information is available to the Court, it is preferable to apply the CSSA guidelines.
When calculating pendente- lite child support the court may use the Child Support Standards Act as guidance in fashioning an award, however it is not required to apply those guidelines to a temporary award. (See Eckstein v Eckstein, 251 AD2d 537 [2d Dept 1998]; see also George v George, 192 AD2d 693 [2d Dept 1993]; Nordgren v Nordgren, 237 AD2d 498 [2d Dept 1997].) However, when sufficient financial information is available to the court, it is preferable to apply the CSSA guidelines.
However, in calculating child support, the court is not bound by the guidelines. ( Nordgren v Nordgren, 237 AD2d 498 [2d Dept 1997].) Domestic Relations Law ยง 240 (1-b) (c).
However, in calculating child support, the Court is not bound by the guidelines. Nordgren v. Nordgren, 237 A.D.2d 498, 655 N.Y.S.2d 585 (2nd Dept.,1997).
This Court cannot agree with defendant's contention that, pendente lite, she is entitled to $420,000.00 in maintenance tax free, or that husband is obligated to meet her total monthly expenses of $23,946.00, according to her affidavit of net worth. The amount of support must be based upon the husband's earnings including his bonuses ( see Nordgren v. Nordgren, 237 AD2d 498, 655 N.Y.S.2d 585 [2nd Dept. 1990]) pendente lite. Based upon the parties' lifestyle and plaintiff's income, there is no basis to require wife to seek employment.