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.
Wendy MOSS, respondent, v. Robert MOSS, appellant.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Balkin, J.), dated August 30, 2005, as granted that branch of the plaintiff wife's motion which was for arrears due under a pendente lite order of the same court (Woodard, J.) dated September 25, 2003, denied his cross motion for a downward modification of his child support obligation pursuant to the pendente lite order, and directed him to pay the sum of $35,707 in arrears under the pendente lite order.
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law and the facts, by deleting the provision thereof directing the husband to pay the sum of $35,707 in arrears under the pendente lite order, and substituting therefor a provision directing the husband to pay the sum of $31,391.27 in arrears under the pendente lite order; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The proper remedy for perceived inequities in a temporary award is to proceed to a speedy trial, where the financial circumstances of the parties can be fully explored (see Levine v. Levine, 19 A.D.3d 374, 796 N.Y.S.2d 178). However, in calculating the arrears due under the portion of the pendente lite order which required the husband to pay the carrying charges on the marital residence, it was error to include the cost of newspaper subscriptions, bottled water, heating filters, a new dishwasher, and long distance telephone calls. And, in calculating the arrears due under the portion of the pendente lite order which required the husband to pay for the children's educational and recreational expenses, it was error to include the cost of the children's cell phone bills. Thus, the husband's arrears should be reduced by the sum of $4,315.73, from the sum of $35,707 to the sum of $31,391.27.
The husband's remaining contentions are without merit.
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: January 16, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)