Strauss v. Saadatmand

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Date filed: 2011-11-01
Citations: 89 A.D.3d 415, 931 N.Y.2d 611
Copy Citations
Click to Find Citing Cases
Lead Opinion

Page 416
We decline to disturb the pendente lite award. There is no showing of either exigent circumstances or a failure by Supreme Court to consider the appropriate factors, such as the parties’ respective incomes and their preseparation standard of living (see Mimran v Mimran, 83 AD3d 550, 550 [2011]; Ayoub v Ayoub, 63 AD3d 493, 497 [2009], appeal dismissed 14 NY3d 921 [2010]). The record does not support defendant’s contention that plaintiffs property assets constituted part of her compensation during the marriage (compare Isaacs v Isaacs, 246 AD2d 428, 428-429 [1998]).

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s request for sanctions. Plaintiffs commencement of this action in New York does not constitute frivolous conduct (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1; Granato v Granato, 51 AD3d 589, 590 [2008]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Sweeny, Renwick and Román, JJ.