Fried v. Fried
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
*585"[T]he purpose of an award of pendente lite relief in a matrimonial action is to 'tide over the more needy party, not to determine the correct ultimate distribution’ ” (Roach v Roach, 193 AD2d 660, quoting Yecies v Yecies, 108 AD2d 813, 814). Thus, ''[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” (Zeitlin v Zeitlin, 209 AD2d 613, 614).
The record does not support the husband’s claim that the award is so prohibitive…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Yecies v. YeciesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- Roach v. RoachAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- Zeitlin v. ZeitlinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
3Cited by4 opinions
- Albanese v. AlbaneseAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Einhart v. EinhartAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- Halas v. HalasAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- Steers v. SteersAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997