Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Linda STRAUSS, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Babak SAADATMAND, Defendant–Appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (La Tia W. Martin, J.), entered on or about April 15, 2010, which, in this divorce action, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant's application for sanctions, and granted plaintiff's cross motion to the extent of directing defendant, during the pendency of this action, to maintain health insurance for plaintiff upon consent and any existing life insurance policies, and pay $2000 per month in child support, 75% of all child care expenses, and 100% of the child's unreimbursed medical expenses, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
We decline to disturb the pendente lite award. There is no showing of either exigent circumstances or a failure by Supreme Court to consider the appropriate factors, such as the parties' respective incomes and their preseparation standard of living (see Mimran v. Mimran, 83 A.D.3d 550, 550, 922 N.Y.S.2d 27 [2011]; Ayoub v. Ayoub, 63 A.D.3d 493, 497, 881 N.Y.S.2d 66 [2009], appeal dismissed 14 N.Y.3d 921, 905 N.Y.S.2d 125, 931 N.E.2d 94 [2010] ). The record does not support defendant's contention that plaintiff's property assets constituted part of her compensation during the marriage (compare Isaacs v. Isaacs, 246 A.D.2d 428, 428–429, 667 N.Y.S.2d 740 [1998] ).
Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant's request for sanctions. Plaintiff's commencement of this action in New York does not constitute frivolous conduct (see 22 NYCRR 130–1.1; Granato v. Granato, 51 A.D.3d 589, 590, 859 N.Y.S.2d 132 [2008] ).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 01, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)