From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

La Mothe v. La Mothe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 13, 1989
148 A.D.2d 500 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

March 13, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Dachenhausen, J.).


Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as continued the order of protection, on consent, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from an order entered on consent of the appellant (see, Bahr v. Bahr, 105 A.D.2d 725); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting therefrom the provision denying that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was to dismiss paragraphs 5 (c) and 5 (e) of the complaint, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

Our review of the record reveals that the court's pendente lite award of $150 per week maintenance and child support to the plaintiff was proper (see, Kay v. Kay, 37 N.Y.2d 632; Matter of Moore v. Moore, 115 A.D.2d 894, 896).

Temporary provisions are intended to tide over a needy party, not to determine the correct ultimate award (see, Yecies v Yecies, 108 A.D.2d 813). In any case, "[t]he proper remedy for any perceived inequities is to press for an early trial" (Schlosberg v. Schlosberg, 130 A.D.2d 735, 736; Schwartz v. Schwartz, 112 A.D.2d 154).

The court properly refused to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint which alleged a pattern of abusive behavior which rendered it "unsafe and improper for her to cohabit with the defendant" (Domestic Relations Law § 170; Echevarria v. Echevarria, 40 N.Y.2d 262; Bulger v. Bulger, 88 A.D.2d 895, 896).

However, paragraphs 5 (c) and 5 (e) of the complaint must be dismissed since the acts complained of therein are time barred (see, Domestic Relations Law § 170; § 210). Other acts complained of were either timely, or if they occurred more than five years prior to the commencement of the action, could be considered as part of a continuing recurring course of conduct (see, Albert v. Albert, 44 A.D.2d 895, 896).

Paragraph 5 (f) of the complaint, which alleges actions occurring in the summer of 1982, must be dismissed only if it is determined that the actions complained of occurred more than five years prior to the commencement of the action. Such a determination may properly await the trial of the action. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Rubin, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

La Mothe v. La Mothe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 13, 1989
148 A.D.2d 500 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

La Mothe v. La Mothe

Case Details

Full title:ELLEN LA MOTHE, Respondent, v. DONALD LA MOTHE, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 13, 1989

Citations

148 A.D.2d 500 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Citing Cases

Covington v. Walker

The repeated offenses are treated as separate rights of action and the limitations period begins to run as to…