Opinion
May 6, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Colby, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the order entered September 18, 1989, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order entered November 14, 1989, made upon reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order entered November 14, 1989, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.
We reject the claim by the plaintiff that the pendente lite maintenance and child support awards are excessive in that they render him unable to meet his own expenses. The record reveals that in 1988 the husband earned over $59,000 as a police officer, as well as receiving gross rental income of approximately $7,200 per year from an apartment the parties owned. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the maintenance and support obligations strip the husband of "income and assets necessary to meet his * * * own expenses" (Chachkes v Chachkes, 107 A.D.2d 786, 786-787; see also, Wesler v Wesler, 133 A.D.2d 627).
In addition, although the husband may be entitled to a credit for certain payments in determining arrears, under the circumstances we find this issue is best resolved at the trial of the action rather than as part of a pendente lite award (see, Rogers v Rogers, 151 A.D.2d 738; Neumark v Neumark, 97 A.D.2d 537; Peltz v Peltz, 56 A.D.2d 519). Similarly, we find that the court correctly deferred to the trial court the determination of whether or not the wife is capable of working. Kooper, J.P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Ritter, JJ., concur.