Quarty v. Quarty

• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: CARDONA
• Citation: 74 A.D.3d 1516,902 N.Y.S.2d 237
• Parties: Tanya J. QUARTY, Appellant, v. Kenneth A. QUARTY, Respondent.
• Decision Date: 10 June 2010

902 N.Y.S.2d 237
74 A.D.3d 1516

Tanya J. QUARTY, Appellant,
v.
Kenneth A. QUARTY, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

June 10, 2010.

902 N.Y.S.2d 238

Mary M. Iocovozzi, Herkimer, for appellant.

Konstanty Law Office, Oneonta (James E. Konstanty of counsel), for respondent.

Before: CARDONA, P.J., SPAIN, STEIN, McCARTHY and EGAN JR., JJ.

CARDONA, P.J.

74 A.D.3d 1516

Appeal from that part of an order of the Supreme Court (Coccoma, J.), entered June 25, 2009 in Otsego County, which granted defendant's cross motion for certain pendente lite relief.

Plaintiff (hereinafter the wife) and defendant (hereinafter the husband) were married in 2000 and are the parents of one child. In 2009, each party commenced divorce actions which were subsequently consolidated. As is relevant to this appeal, following the wife's motion by order to show cause for certain temporary relief, the husband cross-moved seeking, among other things, temporary maintenance. After submission of the parties' amended net worth statements and the past three years of tax returns, Supreme Court directed the wife to pay $375 per week (or $750 biweekly) ¹ and this appeal by the wife ensued.

Initially, we note that because a speedy trial is the most appropriate remedy for any claimed inequity ( see Colley v. Colley, 200 A.D.2d 839, 840, 606 N.Y.S.2d 796 [1994] ), this Court generally will not modify pendente lite awards unless the ordered payments prevent the

74 A.D.3d 1517

payor spouse from meeting his or her own financial obligations or where justice otherwise requires ( see Newkirk v. Newkirk, 194 A.D.2d 842, 598 N.Y.S.2d 589 [1993] ). Notably, "[t]his [C]ourt's authority is as broad as that of the Supreme Court, and it may substitute a discretionary determination for that of the Supreme Court" ( Wagner v. Wagner, 175 A.D.2d 391, 392, 572 N.Y.S.2d 462 [1991] ). When making a pendente lite award a court must consider the respective financial conditions of the parties and the reasonable needs of the party seeking support pending trial ( see

902 N.Y.S.2d 239

Sedlack v. Sedlack, 298 A.D.2d 691, 692, 748 N.Y.S.2d 806 [2002]; Fox v. Fox, 290 A.D.2d 749, 750, 736 N.Y.S.2d 483 [2002]; Wagner v. Wagner, 175 A.D.2d at 392, 572 N.Y.S.2d 462).

A review of the husband's claimed net worth statement clearly demonstrates that he is in financial need of assistance inasmuch as his permanent disability payments of $880 monthly are not sufficient to enable him to meet the basic...