Osha v Osha

Osha v Osha 2012 NY Slip Op 08630 Decided on December 13, 2012 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 December 13, 2012
Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Acosta, Román, JJ.
8825 301110/12

[*1]Jay Osha, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

Olurotimi Osha, Defendant-Appellant.




Brian D. Perskin, Brooklyn, for appellant.
Anne Peyton Bryant, New York, for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen Gesmer, J.), entered July 9, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant husband's motion for pendente lite relief to the extent of awarding him $500 per month in temporary maintenance for a period of six months, with retroactive temporary maintenance of $50 per month, and directing plaintiff wife to pay interim counsel fees of $10,000 directly to defendant's attorney, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is no basis for disturbing the court's award of temporary maintenance. In calculating the award, the court correctly applied the formula set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(5-a)(c)(1) (see Khaira v Khaira, 93 AD3d 194, 197 [1st Dept 2012]). The court considered numerous statutory factors and found that the statutory presumptive or guideline amount of temporary maintenance of $1,959.86 per month was "unjust or inappropriate" (Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][5-a][e][1]). The court set forth the amount of the unadjusted presumptive award, the factors it considered, and the reasons that it adjusted the presumptive award (§ 236[B][5-a][e][2]).
The court providently exercised its discretion in imputing gross annual income to defendant in the amount of $90,000, given defendant's past work experience and educational background (see Hickland v Hickland, 39 NY2d 1, 5 [1976], cert denied 429 US 941 [1976]).

The court's award of $10,000 to defendant's attorney for interim counsel fees, rather than the $25,000 defendant requested, was a provident exercise of discretion (see Domestic Relations Law § 237[a]). Although defendant is the less monied spouse, this divorce action is unlikely to [*2]be prolonged, as the parties have little marital assets and no children.

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: DECEMBER 13, 2012

CLERK