Nimkoff v Nimkoff

Nimkoff v Nimkoff 2010 NY Slip Op 00401 [69 AD3d 501] January 21, 2010 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Nancy Waldbaum Nimkoff, Respondent,
v
Ronald A. Nimkoff, Appellant.

—[*1] The Nimkoff Firm, New York (Ronald A. Nimkoff of counsel), for appellant. Katsky Korins, LLP, New York (Sharon T. Hoskins of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura E. Drager, J.), entered September 14, 2009, which, in this matrimonial action, inter alia, denied defendant husband's application for counsel fees to retain an attorney for the economic trial of this matter and to oppose plaintiff's appeal and also reserved for trial his request for downward modification of his child support obligations, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant's motion for prospective counsel fees and expenses in the absence of a showing of financial hardship and the estimated value and extent of the legal services contemplated (see Block v Block, 296 AD2d 343, 344 [2002]). Moreover, it is well-settled that in the absence of a substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances, not here demonstrated, the proper remedy for any perceived inequity in a pendente lite award is a speedy trial (see Ayoub v Ayoub, 63 AD3d 493, 496-497 [2009]). Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Sweeny, Catterson and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.