Opinion
2012-12-13
Jay OSHA, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Olurotimi OSHA, Defendant–Appellant.
Brian D. Perskin, Brooklyn, for appellant. Anne Peyton Bryant, New York, for respondent.
Brian D. Perskin, Brooklyn, for appellant. Anne Peyton Bryant, New York, for respondent.
GONZALEZ, P.J., MAZZARELLI, ACOSTA, ROMÁN, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen Gesmer, J.), entered July 9, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant husband's motion for pendente lite relief to the extent of awarding him $500 per month in temporary maintenance for a period of six months, with retroactive temporary maintenance of $50 per month, and directing plaintiff wife to pay interim counsel fees of $10,000 directly to defendant's attorney, 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)(c)(1) ( 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 $1,959.86 per month was “unjust or inappropriate” (Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][5–a][e][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 (§ 236[B] [5–a][e][2] ).
The court providently exercised its discretion in imputing gross annual income to defendant in the amount of $90,000, given defendant's past work experience and educational background ( see Hickland v. Hickland, 39 N.Y.2d 1, 5, 382 N.Y.S.2d 475, 346 N.E.2d 243 [1976],cert. denied429 U.S. 941, 97 S.Ct. 357, 50 L.Ed.2d 310 [1976] ).
The court's award of $10,000 to defendant's attorney for interim counsel fees, rather than the $25,000 defendant requested, was a provident exercise of discretion ( seeDomestic Relations Law § 237[a] ). Although defendant is the less monied spouse, this divorce action is unlikely to be prolonged, as the parties have little marital assets and no children.
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.