LEUNG v. MOOSIKASUWAN (2008)

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, Queens County (Fitzmaurice, J.), dated January 4, 2008, as granted that branch of the plaintiff wife's cross motion which was for an award of temporary maintenance in the sum of $2,000 per month.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

 Contrary to the defendant husband's contention, the Supreme Court was not obligated to consider the specific statutory factors enumerated in Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(5)(d) and (6)(a) in determining that branch of the plaintiff wife's cross motion which was for an award of temporary maintenance (see Pascazi v. Pascazi, 52 A.D.3d 664, 665, 861 N.Y.S.2d 95;  Frankenbach v. Frankenbach, 244 A.D.2d 524, 525, 664 N.Y.S.2d 463;  LoMuscio-Hamparian v. Hamparian, 137 A.D.2d 500, 501, 524 N.Y.S.2d 455;  Belfiglio v. Belfiglio, 99 A.D.2d 462, 462, 469 N.Y.S.2d 978).   The court was required to set forth the factors it relied upon and the reasons underlying its determination (see Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][6][b];  Pascazi v. Pascazi, 52 A.D.3d at 665, 861 N.Y.S.2d 95), and it complied with this requirement here.

 Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly considered the relative financial circumstances of the parties and their prior agreements, and did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding the wife temporary maintenance (see McLeod v. McLeod, 50 A.D.3d 979, 979, 854 N.Y.S.2d 910;  Wolf v. Wolf, 291 A.D.2d 491, 491, 738 N.Y.S.2d 226;  Roach v. Roach, 193 A.D.2d 660, 661, 597 N.Y.S.2d 468).  “An appellate court will rarely modify such an award, unless exigent circumstances exist, such as where a party is unable to meet his or her own financial obligations or justice otherwise requires” (Taylor v. Taylor, 306 A.D.2d 401, 401, 760 N.Y.S.2d 884).   The husband has failed to demonstrate any such exigent circumstances (see Ruane v. Ruane, 55 A.D.3d 586, 865 N.Y.S.2d 632;  Care v. Nazzarena, 41 A.D.3d 406, 407, 835 N.Y.S.2d 920;  Levine v. Levine, 19 A.D.3d 374, 376, 796 N.Y.S.2d 178), and thus there is no basis for modification of the temporary maintenance award.

The husband's remaining contention is without merit.