Bernstein v. BernsteinBernstein v. Bernstein
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.), entered January 6, 1988, which denied her motion, denominated as one for an upward modification of pendente lite maintenance and child support, counsel fees, accоuntant’s fees and appraiser’s fees, but which was in actuality a motion to renew.
Ordered that the order is modifiеd, on the law and the facts and as a matter of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof which denied the mоtion, and substituting therefor a provision granting the motion to the extent of increasing the award for maintenancе pendente lite to $1,600 per week, granting interim counsel fees of $30,000 and interim accountant’s fees of $5,000, and by making the awards for pendente lite maintenance and child support retroactive to April 29, 1987, and otherwisе denying the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the defendant, and the plaintiff husband’s time to pay the $30,000 in interim counsel fees and $5,000 in accountant’s fees is extended until 30 days after service upon his attorneys of а copy of this decision and order, with notice, of entry.
The $1,600 pendente lite maintenance award is in addition to the $400 per week in temporary child support and the carrying charges on the parties’ New York City residеnce previously directed by the trial court to be paid by the plaintiff.
Initially, while the defendant’s motion was labеled as being
Although as a general rule, the best remedy for any claimed inequity in a pendente lite award is a speedy trial (Messina v Messina,
The parties herein were married in March 1982 and this divorce action was commenced in January 1987. They have one child, a daughter, currently aged four years who resides with the defendant. The plaintiff has a Master’s degree in business administration from Harvard University, and is a 28% owner of the common stock of Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., Inc., an investment research and management company located in New York City. The company had gross annual revenues of over $100,000,000 in 1986, and hаd assets of over $300,000,000 as of the end of 1986. The plaintiff’s net income after Federal taxes in 1986 was approximately $15,000,000, and his statement of net worth shows personal assets of over $18,000,000. The defendant does not have any indeрendent source of income, and has no assets other than household furnishings, silverware, china, jewelry and artwоrk. The parties own, either separately or jointly, five pieces of real estate: a parcеl in Pound Ridge, on which they have two residences; a home in Palm Springs, California; a cooperative aрartment on Central Park South in New York City; a home in Jerusalem; and a home in Englewood, New Jersey. Except for the apartment, the plaintiff claims the other parcels as his separate property and lists them as bеing solely in his name. The parties often divided their time between the various residences, and expended funds lavishly on trips abroad, on clothing, gifts, and the like. The parties are in agreement that throughout 1986 and the first two months of 1987, the рlaintiff provided the defendant with an allowance of $7,200 per month in addition to paying the carrying charges on the various residences.
In view of the parties’ marital standard of living, the defendant’s lack of any independent source of income, the plaintiff’s clear ability to make the payments, and the fact
With respect to the defendant’s requests for interim counsel fees and interim accountant’s fees, it is well settlеd that such fees are properly awarded in order to enable the movant to prosecute or defend the action, or to carry out necessary disclosure, as the case may be (Cook v Cook,