Opinion
2014-04-30
Messeret TADESSE, respondent, v. Dessalegn H. AMANU, appellant.
Christian L. Goetz, Huntington, N.Y., for appellant. Rosemary Rivieccio, New York, N.Y., for respondent.
Christian L. Goetz, Huntington, N.Y., for appellant. Rosemary Rivieccio, New York, N.Y., for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from so much an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Raffaele, J.), dated February 15, 2013, as granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for pendente lite relief to the extent of directing him to pay temporary maintenance in the sum of $1,150 per month and interim counsel fees in the sum of $5,000.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
“Modifications of pendente lite awards should rarely be made by an appellate court and then only under exigent circumstances, such as when a party cannot meet his or her financial obligations” ( Avello v. Avello, 72 A.D.3d 850, 852, 899 N.Y.S.2d 337;see Trajkovic v. Trajkovic, 98 A.D.3d 575, 575, 949 N.Y.S.2d 706;Flink v. Flink, 92 A.D.3d 833, 833–834, 938 N.Y.S.2d 822). “[A]ny perceived inequities in the pendente lite order can best be remedied by a speedy trial, at which the parties' financial circumstances can be thoroughly explored” ( Palmeri v. Palmeri, 87 A.D.3d 572, 573, 929 N.Y.S.2d 153;see Flink v. Flink, 92 A.D.3d at 834, 938 N.Y.S.2d 822;Iwanow v. Iwanow, 39 A.D.3d 471, 472, 834 N.Y.S.2d 247). Here, the defendant demonstrated no basis upon which to modify the award of temporary maintenance to the plaintiff ( see Flink v. Flink, 92 A.D.3d at 834, 938 N.Y.S.2d 822;Palmeri v. Palmeri, 87 A.D.3d at 573, 929 N.Y.S.2d 153).
Furthermore, “[a]n award of [interim] counsel fees pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237(a) is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the issue ‘is controlled by the equities and circumstances of each particular case’ ” ( Prichep v. Prichep, 52 A.D.3d 61, 64, 858 N.Y.S.2d 667, quoting Morrissey v. Morrissey, 259 A.D.2d 472, 473, 686 N.Y.S.2d 71;see Fredericks v. Fredericks, 85 A.D.3d 1107, 1108, 927 N.Y.S.2d 109). Considering the financial circumstances of both parties and the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for an award of interim counsel fees in the sum of $5,000 ( seeDomestic Relations Law § 237[a]; DeCabrera v. Cabrera–Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d 879, 881, 524 N.Y.S.2d 176, 518 N.E.2d 1168;Prichep v. Prichep, 52 A.D.3d at 64, 858 N.Y.S.2d 667).