Strauss v Saadatmand

Strauss v Saadatmand 2011 NY Slip Op 07686 Decided on November 1, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 1, 2011
Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Sweeny, Renwick, Román, JJ.
5918 12131/08

[*1]Linda Strauss, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

Babak Saadatmand, Defendant-Appellant.




Julie Hyman, Bronx, for appellant.
Linda Strauss, respondent pro se

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (La Tia W. Martin, J.), entered on or about April 15, 2010, which, in this divorce action, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant's application for sanctions, and granted plaintiff's cross motion to the extent of directing defendant, during the pendency of this action, to maintain health insurance for plaintiff upon consent and any existing life insurance policies, and pay $2000 per month in child support, 75% of all child care expenses, and 100% of the child's unreimbursed medical expenses, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

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 plaintiff's 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. Plaintiff's 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.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: NOVEMBER 1, 2011

CLERK