Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011

Conyea v. Conyea

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 22, 2011

81 A.D.3d 869; 917 N.Y.S.2d 874

Cases that cite this one

16 later published cases cite this decision.

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)
Stock v. Stock (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Stock v. Stock (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Charasz v. Rozenblum (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Brody v. Brody (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Shane v. Shane (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Shane v. Shane (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Truglia v. Truglia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
McMahon v. McMahon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Truglia v. Truglia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Truglia v. Truglia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Trajkovic v. Trajkovic (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Trajkovic v. Trajkovic (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Renga v. Renga (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Palmeri v. Palmeri (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)

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

I n an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an amended order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Ritter, J.), dated January 29, 2010, as granted the wife’s motion for an award of *870In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an amended order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Ritter, J.), dated January 29, 2010, as granted the wife’s motion for an award of

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the defendant’s notice of appeal from an order of the same court dated January 11, 2010, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the amended order dated January 29, 2010 (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the amended 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” (Malik v Malik, 66 AD3d 968, 968 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Avello v Avello, 72 AD3d 850 [2010]; Nealis v Nealis, 71 AD3d 851 [2010]; Maksoud v Maksoud, 71 AD3d 643 [2010]). Any perceived inequities in pendente lite support can best be remedied by a speedy trial, at which the parties’ financial circumstances can be fully explored (see Levy v Levy, 72 AD3d 651 [2010]; Avello v Avello, 72 AD3d 850 [2010]; Nealis v Nealis, 71 AD3d 851 [2010]; Maksoud v Maksoud, 71 AD3d 643 [2010]; Swickle v Swickle, 47 AD3d 704, 705 [2008]). Here, the defendant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating exigent circumstances.

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Covello, J.P., Chambers, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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