ALLEN v. ALLEN (2024)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ariel D. Chesler, J.), entered on or about February 29, 2024, which granted plaintiff wife's motion for pendente lite relief in its entirety, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court properly determined that the automatic orders set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(2)(b(1) restrained the parties from transferring, encumbering, assigning, withdrawing, or disposing of assets without the written consent of the other party or consent of the court (see El–Dehdan v. El–Dehdan, 26 N.Y.3d 19, 33 n. 3, 19 N.Y.S.3d 475, 41 N.E.3d 340 [2015];  Spencer v. Spencer, 159 A.D.3d 174, 181, 71 N.Y.S.3d 154 [2d Dept. 2018]).  In light of the complexity of the real estate entities at issue, the court properly concluded that an injunction was necessary to preserve the financial status quo of the parties by proscribing certain conduct until a determination on the merits of the case could be made (see Joseph v. Joseph, 230 A.D.2d 716, 717, 646 N.Y.S.2d 167 [2d Dept. 1996]).  Further, although some of the properties in dispute were acquired after the matrimonial action was filed, the record does not conclusively establish that no marital funds were used in their purchase (see Ader v. Ader, 213 A.D.3d 402, 403, 184 N.Y.S.3d 10 [1st Dept. 2023];  Belmonte v. Belmonte, 211 A.D.3d 1131, 1132–1133, 180 N.Y.S.3d 308 [3d Dept. 2022]).

To the extent the order affects defendant's ability to conduct business, a speedy trial is an aggrieved party's remedy for any perceived inequities in a pendente lite award, and we find no exception applicable here (see Wolinsky v. Berkowitz, 227 A.D.3d 433, 433, 208 N.Y.S.3d 202 [1st Dept. 2024]).