Summary
In Skitzki v. Neal, 149 AD3d 1604 (4th Dept. 2017), the court upheld an award of temporary exclusive use because the excluded party was the "source of the domestic strife, which included one police intervention."
Summary of this case from L.M.L. v. H.T.N.Opinion
04-28-2017
Joseph SKITZKI, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Melissa NEAL, Defendant–Appellant.
Melissa Neal, Defendant–Appellant Pro Se. Feron Poleon, LLP, Amherst (Kelly A. Feron of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Respondent. Kelly L. Ball, Attorney for the Children, Buffalo.
Melissa Neal, Defendant–Appellant Pro Se.
Feron Poleon, LLP, Amherst (Kelly A. Feron of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Respondent.
Kelly L. Ball, Attorney for the Children, Buffalo.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., LINDLEY, DeJOSEPH, AND SCUDDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from an order in this divorce action that, inter alia, granted plaintiff's motion seeking a temporary order of exclusive possession of the marital residence (see Domestic Relations Law § 234 ). Contrary to defendant's contention, the record establishes that she was a source of domestic strife, which required police intervention on one occasion, and that, after the commencement of the action, she purchased a home in proximity to the marital residence (see Annexstein v. Annexstein, 202 A.D.2d 1062, 1062, 609 N.Y.S.2d 132 ; see also Amato v. Amato, 133 A.D.3d 695, 696, 21 N.Y.S.3d 104 ). We therefore conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiff exclusive possession of the marital residence (see generally Iuliano v. Iuliano, 30 A.D.3d 737, 737–738, 817 N.Y.S.2d 174 ). "In any event, the most expedient and best remedy for any perceived inequities in a temporary order of exclusive occupancy, like any other pendente lite order, is to press for an early trial" (Annexstein, 202 A.D.2d at 1062, 609 N.Y.S.2d 132 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).
Contrary to defendant's contention, the court did not deny her cross motion for temporary financial relief but instead adjourned the matter, and thus her contention regarding that requested relief is not properly before us (see Matter of Lefrak Forest Hills Corp. v. Board of Stds. & Appeals of City of N.Y., 38 A.D.2d 979, 979, 331 N.Y.S.2d 852 ). Defendant's remaining contention with respect to the order is without merit.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal from the fourth ordering paragraph is unanimously dismissed and the order is otherwise affirmed without costs.