Weitzner v. Weitzner
| Decision Date | 24 September 2014 |
| Citation | 992 N.Y.S.2d 576,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 06306,120 A.D.3d 1406 |
| Parties | Tara WEITZNER, respondent, v. Yitzchok WEITZNER, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
120 A.D.3d 1406
992 N.Y.S.2d 576
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 06306
Tara WEITZNER, respondent,
v.
Yitzchok WEITZNER, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Sept. 24, 2014.
[992 N.Y.S.2d 577]
Bathsheba Epstein Hersko, PLLC, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Natan Shmueli of counsel), for appellant.
Snitow Kanfer & Holtzer, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Mark M. Holtzer, Alison M. Trainor, and Gary S. Snitow of counsel), for respondent.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Thomas, J.), entered July 23, 2012, which, inter alia, granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were to direct the defendant to pay temporary maintenance in the sum of $4,604 per month, interim child support in the sum of $3,530 per month, interim counsel fees in the sum of $30,000, and his pro rata share of playgroup fees for the youngest child.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
“ ‘Modifications of pendente lite awards should rarely be made by an appellate court and then only under exigent circumstances, such as where a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations, or justice otherwise requires' ”
[992 N.Y.S.2d 578]
(Malik v. Malik, 66 A.D.3d 968, 968, 886 N.Y.S.2d 826, quoting Levakis v. Levakis, 7 A.D.3d 678, 678, 776 N.Y.S.2d 510). Here, the defendant has not demonstrated that any exigent circumstances exist, or that justice otherwise requires modification of the pendente lite award. The proper mechanism to correct an error in a temporary award is a quick trial ( see Malik v. Malik, 66 A.D.3d at 968, 886 N.Y.S.2d 826; Levakis v. Levakis, 7 A.D.3d at 678, 776 N.Y.S.2d 510).
Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in imputing income of $200,000 per year to the defendant for the purposes of computing pendente lite awards of maintenance and child support. In determining a party's maintenance or child support obligation, a court need not rely upon the party's own account of his or her finances ( see Khaimova v. Mosheyev, 57 A.D.3d 737, 871 N.Y.S.2d 212; Peri v. Peri, 2 A.D.3d 425, 767 N.Y.S.2d 846). A court is justified in imputing income to a spouse when it is shown that the marital lifestyle was such that, under the circumstances, there was a basis for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sprole v. Sprole
...that an award of child support on the amount of income over the statutory cap was not warranted (see Weitzner v. Weitzner, 120 A.D.3d 1406, 1407–1408, 992 N.Y.S.2d 576 [2014] ; Betro v. Carbone, 24 A.D.3d 1322, 1323–1324, 807 N.Y.S.2d 507 [2005] ; compare Hymowitz v. Hymowitz, 119 A.D.3d 73......
-
D.D. v. A.D.
...the Court will utilize the statutory cap of $143,000 when determining Husband's child support obligation. See Weitzner v. Weitzner, 120 A.D.3d 1406, 992 N.Y.S.2d 576 (2d Dept.2014). As there are two subject children of this marriage, the correct CSSA percentage is 25%. Twenty-five percent o......
-
Kaprov v. Stalinsky
...actual income and financial resources were greater than what he or she reported on his or her tax returns" (Weitzner v. Weitzner, 120 A.D.3d 1406, 1407, 992 N.Y.S.2d 576 ; see Hoenig v. Hoenig, 245 A.D.2d 262, 263, 664 N.Y.S.2d 823 ). Here, the evidence presented at the hearing regarding th......
-
Shawn M. v. Jacqueline M.
...rendition of their own income and tax returns need not be adopted by the Court if not credible. See Weitzner v. Weitzner, 120 A.D.3d 1406, 1407, 992 N.Y.S.2d 576 [2d Dept., 2014]. Id. "A court is justified in imputing income to a spouse when it is shown that the marital lifestyle was such t......