Opinion
1092 CA 20-00595
11-20-2020
Hillary RIFKIN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. William ILECKI, Defendant-Appellant.
JENNIFER M. LORENZ, ORCHARD PARK, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM, LLC, WILLIAMSVILLE (MICHAEL J. COLLETTA OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
JENNIFER M. LORENZ, ORCHARD PARK, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM, LLC, WILLIAMSVILLE (MICHAEL J. COLLETTA OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CURRAN, BANNISTER, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this action for divorce and ancillary relief, defendant appeals from an order that, inter alia, directed him to pay temporary monthly child support of $4,970 and awarded plaintiff interim counsel fees of $5,500. We affirm.
"The Child Support Standards Act [CSSA] provides the formulas to be applied to the parties' income and the factors to be considered in determining a final award of child support (see Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] ). Courts considering applications for pendente lite child support may, in their discretion, apply the CSSA standards and guidelines, but they are not required to do so" ( Davydova v. Sasonov , 109 A.D.3d 955, 957, 972 N.Y.S.2d 293 [2d Dept. 2013] [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Thus, contrary to defendant's contention, Supreme Court was "not required to calculate [defendant's pendente lite] child support obligation pursuant to the CSSA" ( Vistocco v. Jardine , 116 A.D.3d 842, 843, 985 N.Y.S.2d 578 [2d Dept. 2014] ; see § 236 [B] [7] [a]; Hof v. Hof , 131 A.D.3d 579, 581, 16 N.Y.S.3d 569 [2d Dept. 2015] ). With respect to defendant's contention that the court erred in its calculations, imputation of income, and application of the statutory factors, it is well settled that "[t]he remedy for any claimed inequity in [an] award[ ] of temporary ... child support ... is a speedy trial where the respective finances of the parties can be ascertained and a permanent award based on the evidence may be made" ( Tabor v. Tabor , 39 A.D.2d 640, 640, 331 N.Y.S.2d 102 [4th Dept. 1972] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Baxter v. Baxter , 162 A.D.3d 1743, 1743-1744, 76 N.Y.S.3d 449 [4th Dept. 2018] ).
Finally, contrary to defendant's further contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding plaintiff interim counsel fees (see Domestic Relations Law § 237 ; Johnson v. Chapin , 12 N.Y.3d 461, 467, 881 N.Y.S.2d 373, 909 N.E.2d 66 [2009], rearg denied 13 N.Y.3d 888, 893 N.Y.S.2d 834, 921 N.E.2d 602 [2009] ; Vistocco , 116 A.D.3d at 844, 985 N.Y.S.2d 578 ).