Legal Opinion

Fried v. Fried

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided March 11, 1996PublishedCited by 4 opinions

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

  1. Yecies v. YeciesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
  2. Roach v. RoachAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
  3. Zeitlin v. ZeitlinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Albanese v. AlbaneseAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
  2. Einhart v. EinhartAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
  3. Halas v. HalasAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
  4. Steers v. SteersAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API