Chachkes v. Chachkes
| Decision Date | 28 January 1985 |
| Citation | 484 N.Y.S.2d 619,107 A.D.2d 786 |
| Parties | Jacob CHACHKES, Appellant, v. Adrienne CHACHKES, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Richard S. Scanlan, White Plains, for appellant.
Barton Denis Eaton, Larchmont, for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and BRACKEN, BROWN and RUBIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff husband appeals, as limited by his brief, (1) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated March 15, 1984, as granted defendant's motion for spousal maintenance pendente lite, ordering him to pay all expenses reasonably connected with the marital residence as well as $125 per week, and (2) from so much of a further order of the same court entered April 5, 1984, as, upon renewal and reargument, reduced the weekly maintenance payments to only $75 per week and otherwise adhered to its original determination.
Appeal from the order dated March 15, 1984, dismissed, without costs or disbursements. That order was superseded by the order entered April 5, 1984, which was entered upon renewal and reargument.
Order entered April 5, 1984, modified on the facts, by setting the award of temporary maintenance to defendant at $250 per week and deleting the direction that plaintiff pay all reasonable expenses connected with the marital home. As so modified, order entered April 5, 1984 affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The order dated March 15, 1984, is modified accordingly.
Ordinarily, the proper remedy for inequities in an order of support pendente lite is a speedy trial (Rossman v. Rossman, 91 A.D.2d 1036, 458 N.Y.S.2d 631; Marcus v. Marcus, 91 A.D.2d 991, 458 N.Y.S.2d 199). Nonetheless, when the ordered support payments are so prohibitive as to strip the payor spouse of income and assets necessary to meet his or her own expenses, relief may be granted in the interest of justice (cf. Colabella v. Colabella, 86 A.D.2d 643, 447 N.Y.S.2d 26). Such orders need not, however, comply with the provisions of section 236 () of the Domestic Relations Law requiring that the court "set forth the factors it considered and the reasons for its decision" (Belfiglio v. Belfiglio, 99 A.D.2d 462, 469 N.Y.S.2d 978; Berley v. Berley, 97 A.D.2d 726, 468 N.Y.S.2d 879). The court's primary concern in relation to motions for temporary maintenance is the respective financial conditions of the parties and the movant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McDermott v. McDermott
...v. Leibowits, 93 A.D.2d 535, 537, 462 N.Y.S.2d 469; see, also, Colin v. Colin, 113 A.D.2d 817, 493 N.Y.S.2d 495; Chachkes v. Chachkes, 107 A.D.2d 786, 484 N.Y.S.2d 619; Carella v. Carella, 106 A.D.2d 601, 483 N.Y.S.2d 420). When inchoate rights become actual ownership interests by virtue of......
-
Di Iorio v. Di Iorio
...fraudulent transfers was to seek an injunction against any further transfers of the disputed property. (See Chachkes v. Chachkes, 107 A.D.2d 786, 787, supra, 484 N.Y.S.2d 619; Domestic Relations Law § 234). In fact, such an injunction was granted. In Atlas Garage And Custom Builders, Inc., ......
-
Lloyd v. McGrath
...(see, e.g., Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][6], [7]; Fascaldi v. Fascaldi, 186 A.D.2d 532, 588 N.Y.S.2d 354; Chachkes v. Chachkes, 107 A.D.2d 786, 787, 484 N.Y.S.2d 619; Van Ess v. Van Ess, 100 A.D.2d 848, 474 N.Y.S.2d 90). The award strikes a proper balance between the reasonable needs of ......
-
McCarthy v. McCarthy
...lite maintenance is a primary consideration (see, e.g., Fagelbaum v. Fagelbaum, 115 A.D.2d 454, 495 N.Y.S.2d 692; Chachkes v. Chachkes, 107 A.D.2d 786, 484 N.Y.S.2d 619; Van Ess v. Van Ess, 100 A.D.2d 848, 474 N.Y.S.2d 90) and the other factors which ordinarily govern the determination of p......