Opinion
June 10, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.).
The husband's selective recollection at his examination before trial with respect to his compensation, and the fact that he is the sole officer of his employer and admits controlling his own compensation indicates that the financial information defendant wife seeks cannot be obtained from other sources, and are thus circumstances sufficient to support disclosure from his nonparty employer (see, Dioguardi v. St. John's Riverside Hosp., 144 A.D.2d 333, 334), despite his lack of equity in the business (see, Fox v. Fox, 96 A.D.2d 571; cf., Kaye v. Kaye, 102 A.D.2d 682). No such circumstances were shown to support the husband's request for information from the wife's law firm employer, which was based purely upon speculation as to the wife's prospects for partnership, and whose deposition testimony with respect to such prospects was not evasive.
It was not an abuse of discretion to direct that each party continue to pay the carrying charges as they have been doing since their separation. The husband's remedy for any inequities in the pendente lite award is a speedy trial (see, Aquart v Aquart, 182 A.D.2d 735).
With respect to the award of temporary exclusive occupancy of the parties' Manhattan cooperative apartment, the husband leased the parties' Tuxedo Park home and sublet another Manhattan apartment he had been using since the separation nearly four years earlier, before announcing his intention of moving into the cooperative apartment in which the wife has been living since the separation and which he has never occupied. His recent expressed desire to move into this apartment, for the first time, during the pendency of the matrimonial action, can only be viewed as a tactical maneuver. Under the circumstances, exclusive occupancy was properly awarded to the wife without a hearing.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Ross, Kassal and Nardelli, JJ.