Lynch v. Hennessy-Lynch

*690The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff husband’s motion which was for pendente lite exclusive use and occupancy of the marital home (see Pascazi v Pascazi, 52 AD3d 664 [2008]; Shanon v Patterson, 294 AD2d 485, 486 [2002]; Preston v Preston, 147 AD2d 464, 465 [1989]; Kristiansen v Kristiansen, 144 AD2d 441, 442 [1988]). Angiolillo, J.E, Florio, Leventhal and Cohen, JJ., concur.