Opinion
March 30, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Blydenburgh, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendant argues that the pendente lite award of maintenance was excessive, and that he should not be responsible for all of the carrying charges on the marital residence prior to its sale. We disagree.
When the parties separated, the defendant volunteered to pay the plaintiff $6,000 a month, out of which the plaintiff would pay the $2,750 monthly carrying charges on the marital residence until it was sold. Thereafter, the defendant represented that he would pay the plaintiff $3,700 to $4,000 a month in maintenance for four years. In exchange, the plaintiff was to relinquish all claims to the marital home, to the defendant's assets, and to his business. However, as soon as the plaintiff moved out of the marital residence in accordance with this agreement, the defendant reneged, and stopped sending her any money. In directing the defendant, inter alia, to pay the past-due carrying charges on the marital home, to pay the plaintiff $6,000 a month until the property was sold, and to pay her $3,250 per month in maintenance thereafter, the court merely revived the parties' original agreement.
We see no reason to substitute our discretion for that of the Supreme Court. In addition to taking into account the parties' agreement, the court expressly considered such other relevant factors as the parties' pre-separation standard of living, the plaintiff's reasonable needs, and the financial ability of the defendant to make the payments in question (see, Byer v. Byer, 199 A.D.2d 298; Lobatto v. Lobatto, 102 A.D.2d 728). Any perceived inequity in the pendente lite award can best be remedied by a speedy trial (see, e.g., Byer v. Byer, supra; Cohen v. Cohen, 129 A.D.2d 550; Erdheim v. Erdheim, 101 A.D.2d 803).
O'Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.