Filed Date: 12/18/2007
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/1/2024
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from stated portions of an order
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
We decline to disturb the award to the defendant of pendente lite maintenance as it was a proper accommodation between the reasonable needs of the defendant and the financial ability of the plaintiff (see Stubbs v Stubbs, 41 AD3d 832, 833 [2007]; Barone v Barone, 41 AD3d 623, 624 [2007]; Iwanow v Iwanow, 39 AD3d 471, 472 [2007]).
In light of the financial disparity between the parties, the award of an interim attorney’s fee was a provident exercise of the court’s discretion (see Stubbs v Stubbs, 41 AD3d 832 [2007]; Cooper v Cooper, 32 AD3d 376, 377 [2006]; Singer v Singer, 16 AD3d 666, 667 [2005]).
The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Crane, J.P., Fisher, Garni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.