Opinion
12-07-2016
TZU CHING KAO, appellant, v. David BONALLE, respondent.
Port & Sava, Lynbrook, NY (Gary B. Port and George Sava of counsel), for appellant. Zimmet Bieber, LLP, New York, NY (Olga Batsedis of counsel), for respondent.
Port & Sava, Lynbrook, NY (Gary B. Port and George Sava of counsel), for appellant.
Zimmet Bieber, LLP, New York, NY (Olga Batsedis of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
Appeal by the plaintiff from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pam Jackman Brown, J.), dated October 16, 2014. The order, inter alia, granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for an award of pendente lite child support and maintenance only to the extent of awarding the sums of $4,887.50 per month and $1,965.12 per month, respectively.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The parties were married in 2007 and have one child. In 2013, the plaintiff commenced this action for a divorce and ancillary relief. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for an award of pendente lite child support and maintenance to the extent of awarding her the sums of $4,887.50 per month and $1,965.12 per month, respectively. The plaintiff appeals, arguing, among other things, that she is entitled to an increased pendente lite award.
" ‘Modifications of pendente lite awards should rarely be made by an appellate court and then only under exigent circumstances, such as where a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations, or justice otherwise requires' " (Yerushalmi v. Yerushalmi, 136 A.D.3d 809, 811, 26 N.Y.S.3d 111, quoting Dowd v. Dowd, 74 A.D.3d 1013, 1014, 903 N.Y.S.2d 501 ). Any perceived inequities in pendente lite maintenance can best be remedied by a speedy trial, at which the parties' financial circumstances can be fully explored (see Dowd v. Dowd, 74 A.D.3d at 1014, 903 N.Y.S.2d 501 ; Swickle v. Swickle, 47 A.D.3d 704, 705, 850 N.Y.S.2d 487 ).
Here, although it appears that the parties' obligations may warrant adjustment when a final award is made (see Domestic Relations Law §§ 236[B][5–a][c][1] [d] ; 240[1–b][b][5][vii][C] ), the plaintiff has not demonstrated the existence of exigent circumstances warranting a modification of the pendente lite maintenance and child support awards.
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit.