From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Otto v. Otto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 20, 2004
13 A.D.3d 503 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-03485.

December 20, 2004.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Sgroi, J.), dated March 14, 2003, as directed him to pay pendente lite maintenance and child support.

Before: Santucci, J.P., Adams, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.


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 ( see Albanese v. Albanese, 234 AD2d 489). Under the circumstances of this case, the pendente lite order of the Supreme Court should not be disturbed on appeal.

The husband contends that the Supreme Court erred in directing him to pay both child support and the carrying charges on the marital residence because this resulted in a double shelter allowance. The husband's contention is without merit. Since the Supreme Court did not apply the Child Support Standards Act in fixing pendente lite child support, there is no requirement that the court deduct the amount awarded for carrying charges before determining the appropriate amount of child support ( see Fischman v. Fischman, 209 AD2d 916; cf. George v. George, 192 AD2d 693). The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

Otto v. Otto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 20, 2004
13 A.D.3d 503 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Otto v. Otto

Case Details

Full title:KATHERINE OTTO, Respondent, v. LAWRENCE OTTO, Appellant

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

Date published: Dec 20, 2004

Citations

13 A.D.3d 503 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
787 N.Y.S.2d 375

Citing Cases

Zito v. Zito

The Child Support Standards Act (hereinafter CSSA) provides the formula to be applied to the parties' income…

Vistocco v. Jardine

The plaintiff argues that the Supreme Court erred in awarding the defendant $3,000 per week for temporary…