Pendente Lite Order

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF PART ------------------------------------------------------------------X Plaintiff, Index No.: -against- PENDENTE-LITE ORDER Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------------------X J.: This is an omnibus motion by the plaintiff / defendant (hereinafter husband/"wife") for an order granting pendente lite maintenance, child support, an order of protection, custody, exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence, injunctive relief, counsel fees, and accountants and appraisers fees. The plaintiff / defendant (hereinafter husband / wife) opposes the motion. The parties were married on . There is/are child/children of the marriage ages , , , and . The child(ren) live(s) with the husband / wife. The wife is years old; she lists her occupation as , and earns approximately $ per year pluscompensation and benefits. The husband is years old; he is employed as a , and earns approximately $ per year plus compensation and benefits. The husband also has assets in his name worth approximately $ . The wife also has assets in her name worth approximately $ . Pendente-Lite Order September 2004 American LegalNet, Inc. www.USCourtForms.com<<<<<<<<<********>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2Index No.: page 2. The husband/wife claims: . The husband/wife states: . When awarding temporary maintenance, the court considers and balances the factors enumerated in Domestic Relations Law 236, Part B(6), such as the financial status of the respective parties, their age, health, necessities and obligations, the nature and duration of the marriage, the present and future capacity of each of the parties to be self- supporting, the tax consequences to the parties and the income which the parties are capable of earning by honest efforts. See Baker v. Baker, 120 A.D.2d 374 (1st Dept. 1986); see also, Lowe v. Lowe, 211 A.D.2d 595 (1st Dept. 1995); Lasry v. Lasry, 180 A.D.2d 488 (1st Dept. 1992). See Bagner v. Bagner, 207 A.D.2d 367 (2nd Dept. 1994); see also, Kesten v. Kesten, 234 A.D.2d 427 (2nd Dept. 1996). Moreover, the court is also to consider the standard of living established during the marriage. See Hartog v. Hartog, 85 N.Y.2d 36 (1995). Guided by these principles, the court awards the wife / husband $ per week/month temporary maintenance. In awarding temporary support, the court has considered the guidelines contained Pendente-Lite Order September 2004 American LegalNet, Inc. www.USCourtForms.com<<<<<<<<<********>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3Index No.: page 3. in the Child Support Standards Act (Domestic Relations Law 240 [1-b][c]) as well as the factors which permit a deviation from the standard calculation, as delineated in 240(1- b)(f), such as the financial resources of the custodial and non-custodial parent and those of the child(ren), the physical and emotional health of the child(ren), and his or her educational or vocational needs and aptitudes, as well as the non-monetary contributions that the parents will make toward the care and well-being of the child(ren). See Formato v. Formato, 173 A.D.2d 274 (1st Dept. 1991). Guided by the above, the husband / wife is directed to pay $ per week / month child support. In addition, the husband / wife is directed to pay all carrying charges, including maintenance, condo assessments, rent, mortgage payments, insurance and utilities such as gas, electricity, heat, telephone service of up to $ and cable TV for the marital residence. The husband is also directed to maintain and continue in full force and effect all presently existing policies of life, medical and dental insurance on behalf of wife and the parties child(ren) and to pay all unreimbursed non-elective pharmaceutical, medical, and dental expenses for them. The husband is also directed to pay tuition and school related expenses for the parties child(ren). See Connolly v. Connolly, 83 A.D.2d 136 (1st Dept. 1987). That branch of the motion seeking to compel the husband to pay for private schooling of the parties child(ren) is denied. The husband has not voluntarily agreed to bear this expense and the wife has failed to demonstrate the existence of special Pendente-Lite Order September 2004 American LegalNet, Inc. www.USCourtForms.com<<<<<<<<<********>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4Index No.: page 4. circumstances sufficient to obligate the husband to bear the extraordinary expense over his objection. Samuel v. Venegas, 126 A.D.2d 145 (1st Dept. 1987); Jackson v. Jackson, 138 A.D.2d 455 (2nd Dept. 1988). The award is retroactive to the original date of service of this application. See Domestic Relations Law 236B(6); Dooley v. Dooley, 128 A.D.2d 669 (2d Dept. 1987). Retroactive sums due by reason of this award shall be paid at the rate of $ per week / month in addition to the sums awarded until all arrears have been satisfied. The husband may take a credit for sums voluntarily paid for actual maintenance and support of the wife and child(ren) incurred after the making of this motion and prior to the date of this decision for which he has canceled checks or other similar proof of payment. See Peltz v. Peltz, 56 A.D.2d 519 (1st Dept. 1977); Pascale v. Pascale, 226 A.D.2d 439 (2nd Dept. 1996). The first payment hereunder shall be made within days of the date of this decision and then weekly / monthly thereafter. Domestic Relations Law 237 authorizes the court to direct either spouse to pay counsel fees in order to enable the other spouse to carry on or defend the action as, in the courts discretion, justice requires, having regard to the circumstances of the case and of the respective parties. See DeCabrera v. Cabrera-Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d 879 (1987). Inasmuch as it appears that the wife lacks sufficient funds of her own to compensate counsel without depleting her assets, the wife is awarded interim counsel fees in the sum of $ to be paid by the husband directly to the wifes attorney, within Pendente-Lite Order September 2004 American LegalNet, Inc. www.USCourtForms.com<<<<<<<<<********>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5Index No.: page 5. days after the date of this decision. This award is made without prejudice to further applications for additional sums, as necessary at the time of trial or sooner. See Ritter v. Ritter, 135 A.D.2d 421 (1st Dept. 1987); Jorgensen v. Jorgensen, 86 A.D.2d 861 (2nd Dept. 1982). If the counsel fees are not paid within days the clerk is directed to enter a money judgment in favor of counsel upon written affirmation. No further notice is required. The wifes request for couns