From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rich v. Rich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 1, 1999
259 A.D.2d 478 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

March 1, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Modifications of pendente lite maintenance and child support awards should rarely be made by an appellate court and then only under exigent circumstances, such as when a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations, or when justice otherwise requires ( see, Beige v. Beige, 220 A.D.2d 636; Gitter v. Gitter, 208 A.D.2d 895). The general rule is that the proper remedy for any perceived inequity in a pendente lite award is a speedy trial ( see, Gianni v. Gianni, 172 A.D.2d 487). As this Court has repeatedly noted, pendente lite awards should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse ( see, Polito v. Polito, 168 A.D.2d 440; Shapiro v. Shapiro, 163 A.D.2d 294). Based on these considerations, the pendente lite award of the Supreme Court was proper under the circumstances of this case and should not be disturbed.

The husband's remaining contentions lack merit.

Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rich v. Rich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 1, 1999
259 A.D.2d 478 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Rich v. Rich

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM RICH, III, Appellant, v. JOANNE RICH, Respondent

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

Date published: Mar 1, 1999

Citations

259 A.D.2d 478 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
684 N.Y.S.2d 889

Citing Cases

Campanaro v. Campanaro

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. Pendente lite awards should reflect…