Opinion
October 6, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.).
Ordered that the order, as amended, is modified, on the law and the facts and as a matter of discretion, by (1) reducing the amount payable as and for carrying charges on the marital residence from $971 to $850.21, (2) deleting the provision thereof directing the husband "to pay the monthly sum of $250.00, pendente lite for the temporary spousal maintenance of the defendant", (3) deleting the provision thereof awarding the defendant wife interim appraisal fees of $11,050, and (4) deleting the provision thereof directing the appellant to pay the unreimbursed or uninsured medical, dental, and hospital expenses of the defendant wife and the parties' child; as so modified, the order, as amended, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
It is well settled that in determining the amount of a pendente lite award, "the court must arrive at an accommodation between the `reasonable needs' of the spouse making the application and the financial ability of the other spouse to provide for those needs" ( Stern v. Stern, 106 A.D.2d 631, 632; see, Merle v. Merle, 227 A.D.2d 455; Van Ess v. Van Ess, 100 A.D.2d 848). We find that based upon the financial status of the parties, as well as the remaining financial obligations imposed on the husband, the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion in awarding temporary maintenance and unreimbursed or uninsured medical, dental or hospital expenses to the defendant wife ( see Pascale v Pascale, 226 A.D.2d 439; Merkle v. Merkle, 186 A.D.2d 67). Further, since the parties' son was over 21 years old and no specific expenses which may have accrued prior to his twenty-first birthday are mentioned, the award for his unreimbursed or uninsured medical, dental, and hospital expenses was improper ( see, Silbowitz v. Silbowitz, 226 A.D.2d 699; Breslaw v. Breslaw, 156 A.D.2d 627).
While we agree that the husband should continue to pay carrying charges on the marital residence pendente lite, those charges substantiated by the record total $850.21 ($602 for mortgage and $248.21 for utilities), and not $971, as the trial court found. The order is, accordingly, modified to reflect that computation.
In view of the relative income of each of the parties, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in making an interim award of $11,050 to the wife for appraisal fees ( see, Dunn v Dunn, 143 A.D.2d 801).
Mangano, P.J., Copertino, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.