Opinion
January 28, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Martin, J.).
Appeal from the order dated March 15, 1984, dismissed, without costs or disbursements. That order was superseded by the order entered April 5, 1984, which was entered upon renewal and reargument.
Order entered April 5, 1984, modified on the facts, by setting the award of temporary maintenance to defendant at $250 per week and deleting the direction that plaintiff pay all reasonable expenses connected with the marital home. As so modified, order entered April 5, 1984 affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The order dated March 15, 1984, is modified accordingly.
Ordinarily, the proper remedy for inequities in an order of support pendente lite is a speedy trial ( Rossman v. Rossman, 91 A.D.2d 1036; Marcus v. Marcus, 91 A.D.2d 991). Nonetheless, when the ordered support payments are so prohibitive as to strip the payor spouse of income and assets necessary to meet his or her own expenses, relief may be granted in the interest of justice (cf. Colabella v. Colabella, 86 A.D.2d 643). Such orders need not, however, comply with the provisions of section 236 (part B, subd 6, par b) of the Domestic Relations Law requiring that the court "set forth the factors it considered and the reasons for its decision" ( Belfiglio v. Belfiglio, 99 A.D.2d 462; Berley v Berley, 97 A.D.2d 726). The court's primary concern in relation to motions for temporary maintenance is the respective financial conditions of the parties and the movant's needs for support pending trial ( Jorgensen v. Jorgensen, 86 A.D.2d 861). Upon this record, with these considerations in mind, a total support payment of $250 per week is sufficient to meet defendant's needs.
Plaintiff's contention that Special Term's failure to consider his allegations of fraudulent transfers of marital assets by defendant requires reversal of the orders appealed from is without merit. Plaintiff twice brought these allegations to Special Term's attention and there is no evidence in the record that the court failed to consider them. In addition, plaintiff did not request any affirmative relief. His proper remedy for these alleged fraudulent transfers is to seek an injunction against any further transfers of the disputed funds by defendant (Domestic Relations Law, § 234; see Leibowits v. Leibowits, 93 A.D.2d 535) and to seek to set aside the transfers pursuant to section 273 Debt. Cred. of the Debtor and Creditor Law (see, e.g., Soldano v Soldano, 66 A.D.2d 839). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Brown and Rubin, JJ., concur.