Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012

Flink v. Flink

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 21, 2012

92 A.D.3d 833; 938 N.Y.2d 822

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Tadesse v. Amanu (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Tadesse v. Amanu (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Brennan v. Wappingers Cent. Sch. Dist. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
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)

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

“Modifications of pendente lite awards should rarely be made by an appellate court and then only under exigent circumstances, such as when a party cannot meet his or her financial *834obligations” (Avello v Avello, 72 AD3d 850, 852 [2010]). Perceived inequities in a pendente lite order can best be remedied by a speedy trial at which the parties’ financial circumstances can be fully explored (see Palmeri v Palmeri, 87 AD3d 572 [2011]). Here, the defendant has demonstrated no basis upon which to modify the award of temporary maintenance to the plaintiff (id.).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

The cross appeal must be dismissed as abandoned, as the plaintiff does not seek in her brief reversal or modification of any portion of the order (see Ferri v Ferri, 71 AD3d 949, 950 [2010]). Dillon, J.E, Florio, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.

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