preseparation standard in New York

2013The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion, in effect, for a downward modification of his pendente lite support obligation. “ ‘Pendente lite awards should reflect an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse with due regard for the parties’ preseparation standard of living’ ” (Bogannam v Bogannam, 20 AD3d 442, 442 [2005], quoting Campanaro v Campanaro, 292 AD2d 330, 330 [2002]; see Dowd v Dowd, 74 AD3d 1013, 1014 [2010]; Mbanefo v Mbanefo, 60 AD3d 648, 649 [2009]).

2013The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion, in effect, for a downward modification of his pendente lite support obligation. “ ‘Pendente lite awards should reflect an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse with due regard for the parties’ preseparation standard of living’ ” (Bogannam v Bogannam, 20 AD3d 442, 442 [2005], quoting Campanaro v Campanaro, 292 AD2d 330, 330 [2002]; see Dowd v Dowd, 74 AD3d 1013, 1014 [2010]; Mbanefo v Mbanefo, 60 AD3d 648, 649 [2009]).

2013The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion, in effect, for a downward modification of his pendente lite support obligation. “ ‘Pendente lite awards should reflect an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse with due regard for the parties’ preseparation standard of living’ ” (Bogannam v Bogannam, 20 AD3d 442, 442 [2005], quoting Campanaro v Campanaro, 292 AD2d 330, 330 [2002]; see Dowd v Dowd, 74 AD3d 1013, 1014 [2010]; Mbanefo v Mbanefo, 60 AD3d 648, 649 [2009]).

2013The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion, in effect, for a downward modification of his pendente lite support obligation. “ ‘Pendente lite awards should reflect an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse with due regard for the parties’ preseparation standard of living’ ” (Bogannam v Bogannam, 20 AD3d 442, 442 [2005], quoting Campanaro v Campanaro, 292 AD2d 330, 330 [2002]; see Dowd v Dowd, 74 AD3d 1013, 1014 [2010]; Mbanefo v Mbanefo, 60 AD3d 648, 649 [2009]).

2013Modifications of pendente lite awards should be sparingly made, and then only under exigent circumstances, such as where a party is unable to meet his or her own needs, or where the interests of justice otherwise require relief (see Truglia v Truglia, 91 AD3d 852 [2012]; Palmeri v Palmeri, 87 AD3d 572, 573 [2011]; Najac v Najac, 12 AD3d 579 [2004]).

2013Modifications of pendente lite awards should be sparingly made, and then only under exigent circumstances, such as where a party is unable to meet his or her own needs, or where the interests of justice otherwise require relief (see Truglia v Truglia, 91 AD3d 852 [2012]; Palmeri v Palmeri, 87 AD3d 572, 573 [2011]; Najac v Najac, 12 AD3d 579 [2004]).

2010“Pendente lite awards should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse . . . with due regard for the preseparation standard of living” (McGarrity v McGarrity, 49 AD3d 824, 825 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Malik v Malik, 66 AD3d 968 [2009]; Mueller v Mueller, 61 AD3d 652, 653 [2009]; Whelan v Whelan, 59 AD3d 437, 438 [2009]; Silver v Silver, 46 AD3d 667, 668 [2007]).

2010Contrary to the wife’s contention, modification of the pendente lite maintenance award is not warranted. “ ‘Pendente lite awards should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse . . . with due regard for the preseparation standard of living’ ” (Levy v Levy, 72 AD3d 651, 652 [2010], quoting McGarrity v McGarrity, 49 AD3d 824, 825 [2008]).

2012The award of pendente lite maintenance reflected “ ‘an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse . . . with due regard for the preseparation standard of living’ ” (Dowd v Dowd, 74 AD3d 1013, 1014 [2010], quoting Levy v Levy, 72 AD3d 651, 652 [2010]).

2012“Pendente lite awards should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse . . . with due regard for the preseparation standard of living” (Levy v Levy, 72 AD3d 651, 652 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2010“When evaluating whether a court providently exercised its discretion in awarding maintenance, the factors to be considered are whether the award encourages economic independence, the present and future earning capacity of the parties, the reduced or lost lifetime earning capacity of the party seeking maintenance, the duration of the marriage, whether the amount and duration of the award is appropriate in light of the preseparation standard of living, the reasonable needs of the recipient spouse, the income and property of the parties, the distribution of the marital property, and the health o

2009When evaluating whether a court providently exercised its discretion in awarding maintenance, the factors to be considered are whether the award encourages economic independence, the present and future earning capacity of the parties, the reduced or lost lifetime earning capacity of the party seeking maintenance, the duration of the marriage, whether the amount and duration of the award is appropriate in light of the preseparation standard of living, the reasonable needs of the recipient spouse, the income and property of the parties, the distribution of the marital property, and the health of

2014A pendente lite award is subject to modification where the payor establishes that he is unable to meet his own financial obligations or where justice otherwise requires a modification (see McGarrity v McGarrity, 49 AD3d 824, 825 [2008]; Fruchter v Fruchter, 29 AD3d 942, 944 [2006]).

2008“Pendente lite awards ‘should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse . . . with due regard for the preseparation standard of living’ ” (Silver v Silver, 46 AD3d 667, 668 [2007], quoting Levakis v Levakis, 7 AD3d 678 [2004]; see Albanese v Albanese, 234 AD2d 489, 490 [1996]; Byer v Byer, 199 AD2d 298 [1993]). “ ‘Modifications of pendente lite awards should rarely be made by an appellate court and then only under exigent circumstances’ ” (Silver v Silver, 46 AD3d at 668 , quoting Fruchter v Fruchter, 29 AD3d 942, 944 [2

2011Further, pendente lite awards “should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse . . . with due regard for the preseparation standard of living” (Byer v Byer, 199 AD2d 298 [1993]; see Silver v Silver, 46 AD3d at 668 ; Levakis v Levakis, 7 AD3d 678 [2004]).

2010“Pendente lite awards should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse . . . with due regard for the preseparation standard of living” (McGarrity v McGarrity, 49 AD3d 824, 825 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Malik v Malik, 66 AD3d 968 [2009]; Mueller v Mueller, 61 AD3d 652, 653 [2009]; Whelan v Whelan, 59 AD3d 437, 438 [2009]; Silver v Silver, 46 AD3d 667, 668 [2007]).

2011Further, pendente lite awards “should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse . . . with due regard for the preseparation standard of living” (Byer v Byer, 199 AD2d 298 [1993]; see Silver v Silver, 46 AD3d at 668 ; Levakis v Levakis, 7 AD3d 678 [2004]).

2009Pendente lite awards “should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse . . . with due regard for the preseparation standard of living” (Levakis v Levakis, 7 AD3d at 678 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Silver v Silver, 46 AD3d at 668 ; Byer v Byer, 199 AD2d 298 [1993]).

2013“Pendente lite awards should reflect an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse with due regard for the parties’ preseparation standard of living” (DeVerna v DeVerna, 4 AD3d 323, 323-324 [2004]).

2013“Pendente lite awards should reflect an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse with due regard for the parties’ preseparation standard of living” (DeVerna v DeVerna, 4 AD3d 323, 323-324 [2004]).

2012The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting tht branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for an award of pendente lite maintenance only to the extent of awarding her the sum of $1,750 per week in temporary maintenance (see Malik v Malik, 66 AD3d 968, 968-969 [2009]).

2010“Pendente lite awards should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse . . . with due regard for the preseparation standard of living” (McGarrity v McGarrity, 49 AD3d 824, 825 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Malik v Malik, 66 AD3d 968 [2009]; Mueller v Mueller, 61 AD3d 652, 653 [2009]; Whelan v Whelan, 59 AD3d 437, 438 [2009]; Silver v Silver, 46 AD3d 667, 668 [2007]).

2015In awarding maintenance, “the court must consider the reasonable needs of the recipient spouse and the preseparation standard of living in the context of the other factors enumerated in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a)” (Chalif v Chalif, 298 AD2d 348, 348 [2002]). *735 The factors to be considered in awarding maintenance include “the standard of living of the parties during the marriage, the income and property of the parties, the distribution of marital property, the duration of the marriage, the health of the parties, the present and future earning capacity of both parties, the abili

2007In determining the appropriate amount and duration of maintenance, the court is required to consider the parties’ preseparation standard of living (see Hartog v Hartog, 85 NY2d 36, 49-51 [1995]; Chalif v Chalif, 298 AD2d 348, 348 [2002]).

2014“A pendente lite award should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse, determined with due regard for the preseparation standard of living” (Albanese v Albanese, 234 AD2d 489, 490 [1996]).

2014“A pendente lite award should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse, determined with due regard for the preseparation standard of living” (Albanese v Albanese, 234 AD2d 489, 490 [1996]).

2013The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion, in effect, for a downward modification of his pendente lite support obligation. “ ‘Pendente lite awards should reflect an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse with due regard for the parties’ preseparation standard of living’ ” (Bogannam v Bogannam, 20 AD3d 442, 442 [2005], quoting Campanaro v Campanaro, 292 AD2d 330, 330 [2002]; see Dowd v Dowd, 74 AD3d 1013, 1014 [2010]; Mbanefo v Mbanefo, 60 AD3d 648, 649 [2009]).

2013The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion, in effect, for a downward modification of his pendente lite support obligation. “ ‘Pendente lite awards should reflect an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse with due regard for the parties’ preseparation standard of living’ ” (Bogannam v Bogannam, 20 AD3d 442, 442 [2005], quoting Campanaro v Campanaro, 292 AD2d 330, 330 [2002]; see Dowd v Dowd, 74 AD3d 1013, 1014 [2010]; Mbanefo v Mbanefo, 60 AD3d 648, 649 [2009]).

2005“Pendente lite awards should reflect an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse with due regard for the parties’ preseparation standard of living” (Campanaro v Campanaro, 292 AD2d 330, 330 [2002]; see Susskind v Susskind, 18 AD3d 536 [2005]; DeVerna v DeVerna, 4 AD3d 323 [2004]; Najac v Najac, 12 AD3d 579 [2004]).

2005“Pendente lite awards should reflect an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse with due regard for the parties’ preseparation standard of living” (Susskind v Susskind, 18 AD3d 536 [2005] [internal quotation marks omitted]; Campanaro v Campanaro, 292 AD2d 330 [2002]).

2007Although the trial court is required to consider the parties’ preseparation standard of living in determining the appropriate amount and duration of maintenance (see Hartog v Hartog, 85 NY2d 36 [1995]), the court must also consider the reasonable needs of the recipient spouse and the preseparation standard of living in the context of the other factors (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]; Hartog v Hartog, supra at 52 ; Palumbo v Palumbo, 10 AD3d 680, 681 [2004]).

2007The court must also consider the reasonable needs of the recipient spouse and the preseparation standard of living in the context of the other factors enumerated in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a) (see Hartog v Hartog, supra at 49-51 ; Palumbo v Palumbo, 10 AD3d 680, 681 [2004]; Chalif v Chalif, supra), as well as the reasonable needs of the payor spouse (see Popelaski v Popelaski, 22 AD3d 735, 737 [2005]; see also Cerabona v Cerabona, 302 AD 2d 346, 347 [2003]; Kearns v Kearns, 270 AD2d 392, 393 [2000]; Feldman v Feldman, 194 AD2d 207, 218 [1993]).

2009Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. “ ‘Pendente lite awards should reflect an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse with due regard for the parties’ preseparation standard of living’ ” (Bogannam v Bogannam, 20 AD3d 442, 442 [2005], quoting Campanaro v Campanaro, 292 AD2d 330, 330 [2002]; see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6]; Campion v Campion, 264 AD2d 705 [1999]; Ash v Ash, 262 AD2d 436 [1999]; Landau v Landau, 258 AD2d 508 [1999]).

2004“Rendente lite awards should reflect an accommodation be tween the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse with due regard for the parties’ preseparation standard of living” (Campanaro v Campanaro, 292 AD2d 330 [2002]; see Landau v Landau, 258 AD2d 508 , 509 [1999]).

2007A speedy trial is ordinarily the proper remedy to rectify a perceived inequity in a pendente lite award, though “the rule is not ironclad when the award is deficient” (Byer v Byer, 199 AD2d 298 [1993], quoting Bernstein v Bernstein, 143 AD2d 168, 169 [1988]).

1995Moreover, although generally the best remedy for any claimed inequity in a temporary award is a speedy trial, " 'the rule is not ironclad when the award is deficient’ ” (Byer v Byer, supra, at 298 ; Bernstein v Bernstein, 143 AD2d 168, 169 ).

2012In awarding pendente lite relief, the Supreme Court accommodated the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse, giving due regard to the preseparation standard of living (see Renga v Renga, 86 AD3d 634, 635 [2011]; Levy v Levy, 72 AD3d 651, 652 [2010]; Byer v Byer, 199 AD2d 298 [1993]).

2012In awarding pendente lite relief, the Supreme Court accommodated the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse, giving due regard to the preseparation standard of living (see Renga v Renga, 86 AD3d 634, 635 [2011]; Levy v Levy, 72 AD3d 651, 652 [2010]; Byer v Byer, 199 AD2d 298 [1993]).

2004The award of $1,600 per week was clearly not an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the wife and the financial ability of the husband with due regard to the preseparation standard of living (see Kessler v Kessler, supra; Polito v Polito, 168 AD2d 440 [1990]; Shapiro v Shapiro, 163 AD2d 294 [1990]).

1998Such interim awards should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse (see, Polito v Polito, 168 AD2d 440 ; Shapiro v Shapiro, 163 AD2d 294 ), with due regard for the parties’ preseparation standard of living (see, Salerno v Salerno, 142 AD2d 670 ).

2005It is beyond cavil that pendente lite awards should reflect an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse with due regard for the parties’ preseparation standard of living (Wolff v Wolff, 17 AD3d 355 [2005]; Najac v Najac, 12 AD3d 579 [2004]; Macagnone v Macagnone, 7 AD3d 680 [2004]).

2005“Pendente lite awards should reflect an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse with due regard for the parties’ preseparation standard of living” (Campanaro v Campanaro, 292 AD2d 330, 330 [2002]; see Susskind v Susskind, 18 AD3d 536 [2005]; DeVerna v DeVerna, 4 AD3d 323 [2004]; Najac v Najac, 12 AD3d 579 [2004]).

2005“An appellate court will rarely modify such an award, unless exigent circumstances exist, such as where a party is unable to meet his or her own financial obligations or justice otherwise requires” (Taylor v Taylor, 306 AD2d 401 [2003]).

2005Moreover, “[a]n appellate court will rarely modify such an award, unless exigent circumstances exist, such as where a party is unable to meet his or her own financial obligations or justice otherwise requires” (Taylor v Taylor, 306 AD2d 401, 401 [2003]; see Susskind v Susskind, supra; DeVerna v DeVerna, supra).