MORRIS PERRY v. MORRIS PERRY (2024)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kelly O'Neill Levy, J.), entered August 22, 2023, which granted plaintiff wife's motion for temporary exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 234, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Under the circumstances presented, we perceive no reason to disturb Supreme Court's discretionary award of exclusive possession of the marital residence, pendente lite, to the wife (see generally Kenner v. Kenner, 13 A.D.3d 52, 53, 786 N.Y.S.2d 157 [1st Dept. 2004]).  There is an unquestioned history of protective orders issued for the wife's and children's benefit as against defendant husband, most recently emanating from the criminal court following the husband's arrest at the home.  Personal safety is implicated if supported by orders of protection or evidence of police involvement (see e.g. Blumenfeld v. Blumenfeld, 96 A.D.2d 895, 895, 466 N.Y.S.2d 63 [2d Dept. 1983];  Minnus v. Minnus, 63 A.D.2d 966, 966, 405 N.Y.S.2d 504 [2d Dept. 1978]).  Moreover, the resulting level of domestic strife further underpins the court's order to ensure the personal safety of the parties (see Iuliano v. Iuliano, 30 A.D.3d 737, 737–738, 817 N.Y.S.2d 174 [3d Dept. 2006];  Grogg v. Grogg, 152 A.D.2d 802, 803, 543 N.Y.S.2d 582 [3d Dept. 1989]).

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