Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004

Otto v. Otto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided December 20, 2004

13 A.D.3d 503; 787 N.Y.S.2d 375; 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15592

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

Gonzalez-Furtado v. Furtado (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Barra v. Barra (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Jin C. v. Juliana L. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Vistocco v. Jardine (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Vistocco v. Jardine (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Margolin v. Margolin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Margolin v. Margolin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Davydova v. Sasonov (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Maksoud v. Maksoud (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Nealis v. Nealis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Avello v. Avello (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Ayoub v. Ayoub (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Paul v. Paul (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Sgroi, J.), dated March 14, 2003, as directed him to pay pendente lite maintenance and child support.

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 (see Albanese v Albanese, 234 AD2d 489 [1996]). Under the circumstances of this case, the pendente lite order of the Supreme Court should not be disturbed on appeal.

The husband contends that the Supreme Court erred in directing him to pay both child support and the carrying charges on the marital residence because this resulted in a double shelter allowance. The husband’s contention is without merit. Since the Supreme Court did not apply the Child Support Standards Act in fixing pendente lite child support, there is no requirement that the court deduct the amount awarded for carrying charges before determining the appropriate amount of child support (see Fischman v Fischman, 209 AD2d 916 [1994]; cf. George v George, 192 AD2d 693 [1993]).

*504The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Adams, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.