Hildenbiddle v. Hildenbiddle

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: Before TITONE
• Citation: Hildenbiddle v. Hildenbiddle, 488 N.Y.S.2d 74, 110 A.D.2d 819 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
• Decision Date: 22 April 1985
• Parties: Marianne HILDENBIDDLE, Respondent, v. Lee F. HILDENBIDDLE, Appellant.

Page 74

488 N.Y.S.2d 74

110 A.D.2d 819

Marianne HILDENBIDDLE, Respondent, v. Lee F. HILDENBIDDLE, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

April 22, 1985.

Rudick, Kirschner Rikon & Litman, New York City (Elliot M. Rudick, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Albert F. Emanuelli, White Plains, for respondent.

Before TITONE, J.P., and BRACKEN, RUBIN and LAWRENCE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In a matrimonial action, defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered June 1, 1984, as granted certain branches of plaintiff wife's motion, and, inter alia, awarded her the sum of $350 per week for temporary maintenance, the sum of $150 per week for temporary child support, exclusive possession of the marital residence, and counsel fees of $10,000, and appointed a receiver with respect to an "IRA" account and bonuses.

Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

On the record before us, given the respective circumstances of the parties, the pendente lite award of maintenance and child support was not excessive (see Milward v. Milward, 102 A.D.2d 816, 476 N.Y.S.2d 597; Belfiglio v. Belfiglio, 99 A.D.2d 462, 469 N.Y.S.2d 978; Rossman v. Rossman, 91 A.D.2d 1036, 458 N.Y.S.2d 631; Jorgensen v. Jorgensen, 86 A.D.2d 861, 447 N.Y.S.2d 318; cf. Van Ess v. Van Ess, 100 A.D.2d 848, 474 N.Y.S.2d 90). Moreover, the best remedy for apparent inequities in such awards is a speedy trial (Erdheim v. Erdheim, 101 A.D.2d 803, 475 N.Y.S.2d 468; Marcus v. Marcus, 91 A.D.2d 991, 458 N.Y.S.2d 199).

Although the appointment of a temporary receiver is an extreme remedy, which should not be lightly granted, the record contains sufficient evidence to support such an appointment (CPLR 6401[a]; Nelson v. Nelson, 99 A.D.2d 917, 473 N.Y.S.2d 40; Meurer v. Meurer, 21 A.D.2d 778, 250 N.Y.S.2d 817; Allen v. Allen, 36 Misc.2d 1089, 234 N.Y.S.2d 392). Given defendant's conceded use of narcotics on past occasions and his inability or refusal to meet his financial obligations promptly to the extent that marital property is in danger of being dissipated, Special Term's order constituted an appropriate exercise of discretion (Nelson v. Nelson, supra; Meurer v. Meurer, supra; Allen v. Allen, supra ).

Finally, the award of counsel fees was not excessive and defendant, having failed to assert any opposition to the provision for temporary exclusive possession of the marital...