Gianni v. Gianni
| Decision Date | 01 April 1991 |
| Parties | Deirdre GIANNI, Appellant-Respondent, v. Thomas GIANNI, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Lynne Adair Kramer, Commack (Ruth Sovronsky, of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Paula S. Seider, Garden City (Vincent F. Stempel, of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and EIBER, BALLETTA and O'BRIEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff wife appeals from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered October 5, 1989, which, inter alia, (1) in effect, denied that branch of her motion which was for an interim award of appraisal and accountants' fees by referring those issues to the trial court for determination, and (2) granted that branch of her motion which was for an award of interim counsel fees only to the extent of awarding her $1,000, and the defendant husband cross-appeals from so much of same order as, inter alia, (1) granted those branches of the plaintiff wife's motion which were for temporary maintenance and temporary child support to the extent of awarding her $200 per week in temporary maintenance and $240 per week in temporary child support, and (2) granted that branch of her motion which was to compel him to maintain life, health, dental, and medical insurance for her benefit.
ORDERED that the order is modified, as a matter of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof referring that branch of the plaintiff wife's motion which was for an interim award of appraisal and accountants' fees to the trial court, and substituting therefor a provision awarding her the sum of $1,500 in interim appraisal and accountants' fees; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, with costs payable to the plaintiff.
Upon our review of the record, we perceive no reason to substitute our discretion for that of the Supreme Court with respect to the award of temporary maintenance and child support. The pendente lite support award was not excessive when viewed in relation to the parties' respective financial circumstances, and the award reflects a proper "accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse" to provide support (Polito v. Polito, 168 A.D.2d 440, 441, 562 N.Y.S.2d 561; Shapiro v. Shapiro, 163 A.D.2d 294, 557 N.Y.S.2d 154). Moreover, as ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lloyd v. McGrath
...e.g., Campanella v. Campanella, 232 A.D.2d 598, 648 N.Y.S.2d 698; Beige v. Beige, 220 A.D.2d 636, 632 N.Y.S.2d 826; Gianni v. Gianni, 172 A.D.2d 487, 568 N.Y.S.2d 113; see also, Nolfo v. Nolfo, 188 A.D.2d 451, 590 N.Y.S.2d 902; cf., Bernstein v. Bernstein, 213 A.D.2d 508, 624 N.Y.S.2d 45; B......
-
Colley v. Colley
...remedy for any claimed inequity in a temporary award is a speedy trial (see, Marr v. Marr, supra; see also, Gianni v. Gianni, 172 A.D.2d 487, 488, 568 N.Y.S.2d 113). With these principles in mind, we turn now to the specific arguments raised by defendant on Initially, we reject defendant's ......
-
Frank v. Frank
...perceived inequity in a pendente lite award is a speedy trial (see, Podwal v. Podwal, 234 A.D.2d 530, 651 N.Y.S.2d 191; Gianni v. Gianni, 172 A.D.2d 487, 568 N.Y.S.2d 113). The pendente lite award made by the Supreme Court was not an improvident exercise of discretion and should not be dist......
-
Bagner v. Bagner
...rule continues to be that the proper remedy for any perceived inequity in a pendente lite award is a speedy trial (see, Gianni v. Gianni, 172 A.D.2d 487, 568 N.Y.S.2d 113; Barasch v. Barasch, 166 A.D.2d 399, 560 N.Y.S.2d 658), and that a pendente lite award will rarely be modified by an app......