From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rosenthal v. Rosenthal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 6, 1991
173 A.D.2d 453 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

May 6, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Capilli, J.).


Ordered that the order is modified, as a matter of discretion, by granting that branch of the husband's cross motion which was to reduce the defendant's pendente lite maintenance obligation to the extent of reducing that obligation from $175 to $125 per week; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

"The purpose of temporary maintenance is `to insure that the needy spouse is provided with sufficient funds to meet his or her reasonable needs pending trial'" (Crowley v Crowley, 120 A.D.2d 559, quoting from Belfiglio v Belfiglio, 99 A.D.2d 462). "Although a speedy trial is ordinarily the proper remedy to rectify inequities in an order directing the payment of temporary maintenance, pendente lite relief may be modified on appeal where justice so dictates * * *. When the ordered maintenance payments are so prohibitive as to prevent the payor spouse from meeting his or her own financial obligations, relief may be granted" (Wesler v Wesler, 133 A.D.2d 627, 628).

The husband here, who currently pays the wife $175 per week for temporary maintenance, is also responsible for paying virtually all of the wife's expenses, including her household, automobile, and medical expenses. In addition, the husband now has temporary custody of the parties' two sons, and is solely responsible for their support. The record supports the husband's contention that his monthly financial obligations exceed his net monthly income. Under the circumstances of this case, a reduction of the wife's maintenance payments to $125 per week will provide her with sufficient funds to meet her reasonable needs pending trial, and will enable the husband to meet his financial obligations. We have considered the husband's remaining contentions, and find them to be without merit.

In light of the history of delays, the parties should proceed expeditiously with discovery and trial of this action. Mangano, P.J., Lawrence, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rosenthal v. Rosenthal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 6, 1991
173 A.D.2d 453 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Rosenthal v. Rosenthal

Case Details

Full title:ELLEN ROSENTHAL, Respondent, v. RICHARD ROSENTHAL, Appellant

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

Date published: May 6, 1991

Citations

173 A.D.2d 453 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
570 N.Y.S.2d 77

Citing Cases

Raniolo v. Raniolo

When the pendente lite award is added to the defendant's other obligations arising from the marital assets,…

Beil v. Beil

n which directed the defendant husband to keep sufficient funds in the wife's checking account to allow her…