From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Birnbaum v. Birnbaum

Supreme Court, Special Term, Suffolk County
Apr 12, 1982
113 Misc. 2d 487 (N.Y. Misc. 1982)

Opinion

April 12, 1982

Christine Grobe for plaintiff.

Esseks, Hefter, Cuddy Angel for defendant.


In this action governed by the equitable distribution law, plaintiff moves for an order directing defendant to pay plaintiff a sum of money to enable her to secure the services of a pension actuary and a real estate appraiser. It appears that the parties jointly own a parcel of real estate in East Moriches, New York, and that the defendant husband is employed as a postmaster and has a pension plan with the United States Federal retirement system.

Since the enactment of the New York equitable distribution law, the necessity for awarding a needy spouse a sum of money to secure the services of certain professional appraisers for the purpose of valuing marital assets subject to an equitable distribution thereof has been recognized ( Gueli v Gueli, 106 Misc.2d 877 [valuing a business]; Fay v Fay, 108 Misc.2d 373 [interim award made to enable needy spouse to secure services of pension actuary]; Heber v Heber, 112 Misc.2d 799 [pension actuary award]).

It is anticipated that the majority, if not most, of such applications shall be made in a motion where other pendente lite relief, such as temporary maintenance, child support and counsel fees, will be sought. In such a situation in the Second Judicial Department, the moving spouse must include in his or her moving papers an "Affidavit on Motion for Counsel Fee, Temporary Alimony, Child Support or any Modification of an Award Thereof" ( 22 NYCRR 699.11) in the official form prescribed by said section. Such form enables the court to make observations concerning the financial needs of the parties to the action, and determine need, if any. The court holds that the same requirement applies to applications made for interim awards of fees to secure the services of such appraisers.

Here, the only relief requested in this motion is that which is detailed above. Accordingly, this motion is denied with leave to renew upon including a current affidavit in the form prescribed by 22 NYCRR 699.11.


Summaries of

Birnbaum v. Birnbaum

Supreme Court, Special Term, Suffolk County
Apr 12, 1982
113 Misc. 2d 487 (N.Y. Misc. 1982)
Case details for

Birnbaum v. Birnbaum

Case Details

Full title:MATILDA BIRNBAUM, Plaintiff, v. EARL BIRNBAUM, Defendant

Court:Supreme Court, Special Term, Suffolk County

Date published: Apr 12, 1982

Citations

113 Misc. 2d 487 (N.Y. Misc. 1982)
449 N.Y.S.2d 424

Citing Cases

Musumeci v. Musumeci

The parties have stipulated to submit affidavits regarding attorneys' fees rather than having testimony in…

Anderson v. Anderson

There is no statement in the motion papers submitted by plaintiff concerning the necessity for expert…