Opinion
May 2, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Glass, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as awarded the wife temporary exclusive possession of the marital premises is dismissed, as that part of the order was entered upon the consent of the husband; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is otherwise affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.
We reject the husband's contention that the temporary maintenance award was excessive. Based upon a review of the instant record, which consists of conflicting affidavits, we see no reason to substitute our discretion for that of the Supreme Court, which gave due consideration to all the relevant factors. In view of the wife's reasonable needs, the standard of living enjoyed by the parties, the husband's earnings, and the wife's income and limited liquid assets, the temporary maintenance award was not excessive (see, Cohen v Cohen, 129 A.D.2d 550; Chosed v Chosed, 116 A.D.2d 690; Stern v Stern, 106 A.D.2d 631; cf., Messina v Messina, 101 A.D.2d 856).
The husband also contends that the Supreme Court erred in awarding the wife temporary exclusive possession of the marital residence. However, a review of the minutes of a court conference, dated October 29, 1986, indicates that so much of the order appealed from as awarded the wife temporary exclusive possession of the marital premises was based upon an agreement between the parties. Consequently, this part of the order is not reviewable, because the husband is not an aggrieved party (see, Borgia v City of New York, 12 N.Y.2d 151, affd on remand 15 N.Y.2d 665; Rumph v Gotham Ford, 44 A.D.2d 792, appeal dismissed 34 N.Y.2d 952, lv denied 34 N.Y.2d 519). In any event, exclusion of the husband from the marital residence was justified where the husband, of his own volition, had established an alternative residence for himself and his return to the marital home would engender unnecessary domestic strife (see, Judell v Judell, 128 A.D.2d 416; Wolfe v Wolfe, 111 A.D.2d 809). With respect to the latter issue, it is noteworthy that the husband has not appealed from so much of the order as granted the parties mutual orders of protection. Thompson, J.P., Kunzeman, Rubin and Harwood, JJ., concur.