Shanon v. Patterson
| Decision Date | 20 May 2002 |
| Citation | 742 N.Y.S.2d 653,294 A.D.2d 485 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | MILETTE SHANON, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>JEROME D. PATTERSON, Appellant. |
Ordered that the plaintiff wife is awarded one bill of costs.
The purpose of a pendente lite award is to provide a needy spouse with funds for his or her support and reasonable needs and those of the children in his or her custody (see Celauro v Celauro, 257 AD2d 588, 589; Pascale v Pascale, 226 AD2d 439, 440; Gold v Gold, 212 AD2d 503). While an award may be modified where a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations (see Hoenig v Hoenig, 245 AD2d 262, 263; Gold v Gold, supra), the court properly considered the parties' respective incomes in awarding child support (see Eckstein v Eckstein, 251 AD2d 537; Nordgren v Nordgren, 237 AD2d 498).
Although voluntary payments are preferred while a proceeding is pending, a pendente lite award of child support is appropriate where, as here, the voluntary payments are not sufficient to meet the reasonable needs and standard of living of the nonpaying party (see Krantz v Krantz, 175 AD2d 863; cf. Hite v Hite, 89 AD2d 577).
The award of child care expenses of $1,700 per month to the plaintiff wife should be reduced to $964.60, representing 70% of $1,378, the monthly fee for the children's day care center. The record indicates that the child care expenses in excess of those for day care are required in conjunction with her full-time employment. In light of the fact that the plaintiff is not currently employed, albeit she is seeking employment, the defendant husband should only be required to contribute to the cost of child care expenses related to the search for employment (see Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [c] [6]; McBride v McBride, 238 AD2d 320, 321).
In view of the disparate earnings of the parties, the court properly ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's interim counsel fees (see Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; O'Shea v O'Shea, 93 NY2d 187; Celauro v Celauro, supra).
Under the circumstances of this case, there was no need for a hearing to determine pendente lite custody (see Okerblom v Okerblom, 265 AD2d 414, 415; Hoenig v Hoenig, supra; Kehoe v Kehoe, 234 AD2d 272; Askinas v Askinas, 155 AD2d 498). In addition, the record reflects the fact that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In the Matter of Christine Scarduzio v. Ryan
...2010, the date that the father filed his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation ( see Shanon v. Patterson, 294 A.D.2d 485, 742 N.Y.S.2d 653; McBride v. McBride, 238 A.D.2d 320, 656 N.Y.S.2d 290). We reject the father's argument that the costs of the after-schoo......
-
Brody v. Brody
...voluntary payments are not sufficient to meet the reasonable needs and standard of living of the nonpaying party” ( Shanon v. Patterson, 294 A.D.2d 485, 485, 742 N.Y.S.2d 653; see Krantz v. Krantz, 175 A.D.2d 863, 864, 573 N.Y.S.2d 736). Further, “[m]odifications of pendente lite awards sho......
-
V.Z.V. v. K.P.V.
...is the financial needs of the party making the application. (Cooper v. Cooper, 7 AD3d 746, 747 [2 Dep't 2004]; Shanon v. Patterson, 294 A.D.2d 485, 48 [2d Dep't 2002] ). However, the husband's financial needs and obligations must be taken into consideration as well. (DeNicola v. Denicola, 1......
-
Lynch v. Hennessy–lynch
...lite exclusive use and occupancy of the marital home ( see Pascazi v. Pascazi, 52 A.D.3d 664, 861 N.Y.S.2d 95; Shanon v. Patterson, 294 A.D.2d 485, 486, 742 N.Y.S.2d 653; Preston v. Preston, 147 A.D.2d 464, 465, 537 N.Y.S.2d 824; Kristiansen v. Kristiansen, 144 A.D.2d 441, 442, 534 N.Y.S.2d......