From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zheng v. Pan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 7, 2005
23 A.D.3d 378 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

2004-05999.

November 7, 2005.

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, Queens County (Lebowitz, J.), dated June 10, 2004, as directed him to pay the plaintiff the sums of $750 per month as pendente lite maintenance, $3,745 per month as pendente lite child support, and $10,000 as an interim attorney's fee, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from the same order.

Kenneth J. Weinstein, Garden City, N.Y. (Lloyd C. Rosen of counsel), for appellant-respondent.

Sager and Gellerman, Forest Hills, N.Y. (Audrey M. Sager and Esther Chyzyk Bernheim of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

Before: Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Krausman and Covello, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed as abandoned, without costs or disbursements ( see 22 NYCRR 670.8 [c] [3]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

"Modifications of pendente lite maintenance and child support should rarely be made by an appellate court, and then only under exigent circumstances, such as when a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations, or when justice otherwise requires" ( Oquendo v. Oquendo, 7 AD3d 687, 688; see Chauca v. Chauca, 5 AD3d 421, 421-422; Verderame v. Verderame, 247 AD2d 609). The defendant did not demonstrate that the pendente lite award left him unable to meet his own financial obligations ( see Chauca v. Chauca, supra; Aliano v. Aliano, 285 AD2d 522). The pendente lite award represents an adequate accommodation between the reasonable needs of both parties ( see Oquendo v. Oquendo, supra; Aliano v. Aliano, supra). Any inequities perceived by the defendant can best be remedied by a speedy trial ( see Oquendo v. Oquendo, supra; Verderame v. Verderame, supra).

In light of the parties' disparate economic circumstances, the award of an interim attorney's fee to the plaintiff was a provident exercise of discretion ( see Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; O'Shea v. O'Shea, 93 NY2d 187, 193; Macagnone v. Macagnone, 7 AD3d 680; DeVerna v. DeVerna, 4 AD3d 323).


Summaries of

Zheng v. Pan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 7, 2005
23 A.D.3d 378 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Zheng v. Pan

Case Details

Full title:DIANA ZHENG, Respondent-Appellant, v. CALVIN PAN, Appellant-Respondent

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

Date published: Nov 7, 2005

Citations

23 A.D.3d 378 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 8316
803 N.Y.S.2d 446

Citing Cases

Sinanis v. Sinanis

The defendant seeks further modification of his pendente lite child support obligation, which the Supreme…

Kuznetsov v. Kuznetsova

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, based on the disparate financial circumstances between the parties,…