Opinion
November 17, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Balletta, J.).
Ordered that the order is modified, on the law and the facts, by deleting the provision which awarded the plaintiff $600 per week temporary maintenance payable in the event she does not reside in the marital residence, and substituting therefor a provision awarding her $400 per week in the event she does not reside in the marital residence. As so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
In determining the appropriate amount of a temporary maintenance award, the court's primary consideration is to accommodate the reasonable needs of the spouse seeking support and the financial ability of the other spouse to meet those needs (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]; Colin v Colin, 113 A.D.2d 817; Chachkes v Chachkes, 107 A.D.2d 786). Here, the defendant was directed to continue to pay the carrying charges on the marital residence, an apartment in Manhattan, and a house in East Hampton, which are by statutory definition marital property (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [c]). Since there are two residences available to adequately accommodate the separate housing needs of each spouse, the alternative temporary maintenance award of $600 per week in the event the plaintiff resides elsewhere is inappropriate. Such an award would merely serve to deplete the defendant's income, rendering him unable to adequately meet his own maintenance needs and support payments for his children from a prior marriage (see, Colin v Colin, 113 A.D.2d 817, supra).
Lastly, we reject the defendant's contention that Special Term's directive to pay specific carrying charges on the marital residence and the East Hampton house is invalid on the ground that the monetary limits of the defendant's obligation are not fixed. Payments directed in a pendente lite order, as opposed to a final judgment (see, Rogers v Rogers, 116 A.D.2d 710; cf. Price v Price, 113 A.D.2d 299, 308-309), do not represent open-ended obligations (Rainone v Rainone, 118 A.D.2d 766; see, e.g., Ruffolo v Ruffolo, 114 A.D.2d 843; Catania v Catania, 111 A.D.2d 896). Mangano, J.P., Brown, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.