Opinion
2013-07250
12-03-2014
Beth WEINBERG, respondent, v. Michael WEINBERG, appellant.
Michael Weinberg, Long Beach, N.Y., appellant pro se.
Michael Weinberg, Long Beach, N.Y., appellant pro se.
L. PRISCILLA HALL, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
Opinion In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Pardes, J.), dated May 1, 2013, as granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for pendente lite relief to the extent of directing him to pay child support in the sum of $996 every two weeks, carrying charges on the marital residence in the sum of $1,295 per month, temporary maintenance in the sum of $400 every two weeks, and gym fees for the parties' daughter in the sum of $382 per month.
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by deleting the provisions thereof directing the defendant to pay temporary maintenance in the sum of $400 every two weeks and gym fees for the parties' daughter in the sum of $382 per month; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
An appellate court should rarely modify a pendente lite award, and then “ ‘only under exigent circumstances, such as where a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations, or justice otherwise requires' ” (Malik v. Malik, 66 A.D.3d 968, 968, 886 N.Y.S.2d 826, quoting Levakis v. Levakis, 7 A.D.3d 678, 678, 776 N.Y.S.2d 510 ; see Chusid v. Silvera, 110 A.D.3d 660, 661, 973 N.Y.S.2d 233 ; Renga v. Renga, 86 A.D.3d 634, 635, 928 N.Y.S.2d 547 ; Silver v. Silver, 46 A.D.3d 667, 668, 847 N.Y.S.2d 596 ). Here, the Supreme Court did not adequately consider the defendant's needs. Using the figures utilized by the Supreme Court, the defendant would not be able to meet his own financial needs and obligations after making the payments imposed upon him (see Fruchter v. Fruchter, 29 A.D.3d 942, 944, 816 N.Y.S.2d 525 ; French v. French, 260 A.D.2d 428, 429, 687 N.Y.S.2d 719 ; Hills v. Hills, 240 A.D.2d 706, 660 N.Y.S.2d 36 ). Accordingly, we modify the order to the extent indicated herein.
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.