KHAZANEH v. KHAZANEH (2023)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Douglas E. Hoffman, J), entered on or about November 2, 2022, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied, in part, plaintiff wife's motion for pendente lite relief insofar as it awarded her $17,000 per month of the requested $64,956 in interim maintenance and directed her to pay 30% of the carrying costs of the marital residence from that amount, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is no basis for disturbing the court's award of temporary maintenance.  In calculating the award, the court correctly applied the formula set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(5–a) (see Khaira v. Khaira, 93 A.D.3d 194, 197, 938 N.Y.S.2d 513 [1st Dept. 2012]).  The court considered numerous statutory factors and found that the statutory presumptive or guideline amount of temporary maintenance of $5,075 per month was “unjust or inappropriate” (Domestic Relations Law § 236[B] [5–a] [h][1]).  The court set forth the amount of the unadjusted presumptive award, the factors it considered, and the reasons that it adjusted the presumptive award.  There are no exigent circumstances present.  The wife's remedy for any perceived inequities in the pendente lite award is a speedy trial (see Lesser v. Lesser, 203 A.D.3d 466, 466, 164 N.Y.S.3d 590 [1st Dept. 2022]).

As maintenance awards are intended to include all basic living expenses, including housing costs, the court's directing the wife to pay a proportionate amount of her maintenance income to cover a share of the carrying costs of the marital residence was not in error (see Blake v. Blake, 164 A.D.3d 1111, 1112, 84 N.Y.S.3d 62 [1st Dept. 2018];  Severny v. Severny, 210 A.D.3d 419, 419, 175 N.Y.S.3d 729 [1st Dept. 2022];  Francis v. Francis, 111 A.D.3d 454, 455, 975 N.Y.S.2d 13 [1st Dept. 2013]).

We have considered the wife's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.