I. Statement Pursuant to CPLR 2219 [a]

The following e-filed documents listed on NYSCEF (Motion No. 001) numbered 17-39, 41, 45-55 were read on this motion. Oral argument was completed on February 5, 2026. The following papers were considered in connection with Defendant's Order to Show Cause seeking pendente lite relief:

1. Order to Show Cause dated January 30, 2026;

2. Affirmation of MA, sworn to January 28, 2026, with exhibits;

3. Affirmation of Evan D. Schein, Esq., dated January 30, 2026, with exhibits;

4. Affirmation in Opposition of Jeffrey S. Schecter, Esq., dated February 4, 2026, with exhibits;

5. Affirmation in Opposition of JA, sworn February 2026, with exhibits;

6. Oral argument.

This is an action for divorce and ancillary relief. Defendant commenced this application by Order to Show Cause seeking pendente lite relief, including unallocated spousal maintenance and child support, together with directives concerning the payment of shelter and carrying charges, private school tuition, health insurance, unreimbursed medical and therapeutic expenses, and statutory add-on expenses.

The motion was fully briefed and argued. Prior to oral argument and subsequent conferences with counsel, the parties resolved all branches of the application except the request [*2]for pendente lite unallocated maintenance and child support.

Accordingly, the sole remaining issue before the Court is the appropriate amount and structure of temporary unallocated support pending final adjudication.

The Court now renders its determination on that limited issue.

The parties were married on August 26, 2009. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 18 at ¶7). Three children were born of the marriage: VA, age fifteen; JA, age twelve; and AA, age five. (see id). All three children are unemancipated. The sworn affidavits and financial disclosures establish that Defendant has been the children's primary caregiver throughout the marriage and continues to exercise primary residential custody. (see id at ¶9-12). Plaintiff does not meaningfully dispute that arrangement.

Defendant holds a Bachelor of Science degree. (see id at ¶11). She avers, and Plaintiff does not meaningfully controvert, that she remained outside the workforce for approximately eighteen years at Plaintiff's encouragement in order to care for the children and manage the household. (see id). Defendant presently has no independent income and no immediate prospects for comparable earnings.

Plaintiff is the parties' primary income earner. The documentary evidence, including tax returns and sworn financial disclosures, reflects that the parties' 2024 joint return reported adjusted gross income in excess of $3.6 million. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 12; 26; 54). Defendant further avers that Plaintiff derives substantial income from business operations and commercial real estate holdings, identifying specific monthly rental income figures exceeding $400,000 in certain months. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 18 at ¶12; 20).

The evidentiary record further establishes that Plaintiff controls extensive assets, including numerous commercial properties and a substantial collection of luxury vehicles, including multiple Ferraris. Plaintiff's Statement of Net Worth reflects annual personal and household expenditures approaching $1 million. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 12; 18 at ¶28). The affidavits, financial records, and exhibits describe a marital lifestyle characterized by multiple residences, private schooling, luxury travel, high-end consumer purchases, and significant expenditures on automobiles and personal services. The Court has reviewed contemporaneous receipts, invoices, bank transaction histories, and credit card statements spanning multiple years, which corroborate these descriptions and reflect sustained patterns of discretionary spending rather than isolated expenditures. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 29; 31; 33; 34).

Plaintiff does not dispute that the parties lived at a high level of financial comfort. The Court finds that the marriage was characterized by extraordinary financial resources and flexibility. Defendant submitted a sworn Statement of Net Worth reflecting monthly expenses of approximately $39,000, exclusive of housing, tuition, and certain medical and therapeutic expenses that Plaintiff pays directly. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 26). Defendant avers that these expenses reflect continuation of the marital standard of living. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 18).

It is undisputed that Plaintiff continues to pay substantial expenses directly, including mortgages, taxes, insurance, utilities, and maintenance on multiple residences; private school tuition and related educational expenses; health insurance; unreimbursed medical and therapeutic expenses; and certain automobile-related costs.

With respect to interim financial arrangements since commencement, Defendant avers that Plaintiff replaced a high-limit credit card with one limited to $5,000 (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 38), issued a single check for $4,500, and thereafter made sporadic deposits. Defendant asserts that she has been required to repeatedly request funds and has been unable to predict what support would be available in any given month.

Plaintiff does not materially dispute that the payment structure lacked regularity. The Court credits Defendant's description insofar as it relates to the lack of predictability, stability, and financial autonomy.

A. Purpose and Nature of Pendente Lite Relief

Temporary maintenance and child support are intended to ensure that the non-monied spouse is not placed at an economic disadvantage during the pendency of matrimonial litigation and is able to meet reasonable needs without being compelled to repeatedly seek financial assistance from the monied spouse (see Frates v Frates, 68 AD3d 813 [2d Dept 2009]; Stern v Stern, 106 AD2d 631 [2d Dept 1984]). Such awards are designed to preserve, to the extent practicable, the marital status quo and to provide stability pending final determination (see Goncalves v Goncalves, 105 AD3d 901 [2d Dept 2013]; McGarrity v McGarrity, 49 AD3d 824 [2d Dept 2008]).

The Temporary Maintenance Law reflects a legislative intent to prevent economic coercion and to ensure that interim awards are meaningful (see Khaira v Khaira, 93 AD3d 194 [1st Dept 2012]). Accordingly, pendente lite awards must permit the less-monied spouse to litigate on relatively equal footing and to maintain reasonable financial independence (see Mueller v Mueller, 61 AD3d 652 [2d Dept 2009]; Silver v Silver, 46 AD3d 667 [2d Dept 2007]).

B. Statutory Framework, Income Cap, and Unallocated Awards

Temporary maintenance is governed by Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5-a]. Child support is governed by the Child Support Standards Act. Where income exceeds the statutory cap, the Court must calculate the guideline amount and determine whether deviation is warranted (see Warshaw v Warshaw, 173 AD3d 582 [1st Dept 2019]; Matter of Hipp v Ryan, 188 AD3d 1206 [2d Dept 2020]).

For actions commenced during the relevant period, the applicable cap identified in the sworn papers is $228,000.00. Application of the statutory formula yields a presumptive annual temporary maintenance award of approximately $45,600.00.

Because Plaintiff's income far exceeds the cap, strict application of the guideline amount would not reflect the parties' actual circumstances (see Moradi v. Buhl, 201 AD3d 928 [2d Dept 2022]). Because the award is unallocated, the Court has considered both maintenance and child support principles in fashioning a single interim obligation.

C. Factors Supporting Deviation

Deviation is warranted based upon the following statutory considerations: Plaintiff earns in excess of $3.6 million annually, while Defendant has no present earning capacity (see McGarrity v McGarrity, supra). The parties enjoyed an exceptionally affluent lifestyle (see Goncalves v Goncalves, supra). Defendant assumed primary domestic and childcare responsibilities (see Silver v Silver, supra). The marriage exceeds fifteen years (see Albanese v Albanese, 234 AD2d 489 [2d Dept 1996]). Defendant remains the primary residential parent (see Byer v Byer, 199 AD2d 298 [2d Dept 1993]). Plaintiff controls substantial assets. The interim payment structure fostered dependency and uncertainty (see Khaira v Khaira, supra).

D. Standard of Living and Financial Circumstances

The documentary evidence reflects sustained patterns of high discretionary spending consistent with Plaintiff's income and resources. The Court finds that Defendant has established a marital standard of living substantially above ordinary comfort and that continuation of reasonable stability requires deviation above the guideline amount.

E. Shelter Credit and Avoidance of Duplication

Plaintiff pays substantial shelter-related expenses directly. Courts must avoid duplicative shelter awards where carrying charges are already being paid (Mueller v Mueller, supra; Helen Li-Chuan C. Su v Glen C. Su, 128 AD3d 949 [2d Dept 2015]). The Court therefore accounts for these direct-pay obligations in fixing the unallocated award so as to avoid double shelter.

F. Financial Control and Method of Payment

The Court finds that the practice of providing support in irregular, discretionary installments, requiring repeated requests for basic funds, constitutes a form of financial control inconsistent with the purposes of pendente lite relief and detrimental to stability. Such a structure fosters dependency and uncertainty and undermines the dignity and autonomy of the recipient spouse (Khaira v Khaira, supra; Frates v Frates, supra). Accordingly, structured lump-sum payment is warranted.

G. Comparative Lifestyle Evidence

The Court has reviewed extensive documentary proof, including contemporaneous receipts, invoices, transaction histories, bank statements, credit card records, travel documentation, tuition invoices, vehicle maintenance records, and property-related expenses.

These materials demonstrate sustained and recurring patterns of high discretionary spending over many years. They reflect expenditures for multiple residences, private education, luxury travel, personal services, and high-value vehicles. They are internally consistent and correspond with Plaintiff's sworn financial disclosures.

Plaintiff does not provide a comparably detailed alternative budget. Where one party provides extensive contemporaneous financial documentation and the opposing party relies primarily on generalized disagreement, the Court is entitled to credit the objective records (Silver v Silver, supra; McGarrity v McGarrity, supra).

H. Sufficiency of the Evidentiary Record

The sworn affidavits, affirmations, financial disclosures, and exhibits provide a detailed and reliable evidentiary foundation. They permit findings regarding income, lifestyle, dependency, direct-pay obligations, and interim payment practices. The record is sufficient to support an interim determination.

I. Determination of Amount

The Court calculated guideline benchmarks, identified deviation factors, quantified direct-pay obligations, excluded shelter costs, evaluated reasonable needs, and conducted a proportionality review.

With Plaintiff's income exceeding $3.6 million annually and his disclosed expenditures approaching $1 million per year, an unallocated award of $30,000 per month, together with continued direct payment of shelter, tuition, medical, and add-ons, falls within the range of reasonableness (see Novick v Novick, 214 AD3d 995 [2d Dept 2023]). An award substantially below this amount would fail to reflect marital reality. An award near the originally requested amount would risk duplication.

J. Judicial Economy and Litigation Conduct

The Court's experience in matrimonial matters demonstrates that unresolved interim disputes frequently generate successive enforcement and modification applications. The parties' inability to resolve this fundamental issue reflects a risk of protracted litigation. High-conflict motion practice erodes the marital estate and burdens the children. This Order is structured to reduce foreseeable disputes and encourage stability.

K. Retroactivity, Credits, and Arrears

Temporary support is ordinarily made retroactive to the date the application was made (see Johnson v Johnson, 172 AD3d 1654 [3d Dept 2019]; McGarrity v McGarrity, supra). Here, the application was made on January 15, 2026. Accordingly, the award is retroactive to that date. Plaintiff shall receive credit for sums actually paid as support and for documented payments expressly intended as substitutes. Direct-pay obligations are not credits unless shown to substitute for cash support. Any arrears remaining after credits shall be paid within sixty (60) days unless otherwise agreed.

The Court has evaluated the statutory framework, controlling precedent, and sworn evidentiary record. It has accounted for income disparity, marital lifestyle, dependency, direct-pay obligations, and the need for predictability. An award of $30,000.00 per month in unallocated pendente lite spousal maintenance and child support is appropriate and equitable.

ORDERED that, with all other issues having been resolved, Defendant's remaining application is GRANTED to the extent set forth herein; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff shall pay Defendant unallocated pendente lite spousal maintenance and child support in the amount of $30,000.00 per month, in a single lump sum on or before the first day of each month, commencing February 1, 2026; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff shall continue to pay 100% of all shelter/carrying charges, tuition, insurance, unreimbursed medical and therapeutic expenses, and statutory add-ons; and it is further

ORDERED that the award shall be retroactive to January 15, 2026, with credit as set forth herein; and it is further

ORDERED that all other relief is DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that this determination is without prejudice to either party's rights at trial or upon a showing of changed circumstances, and it is further

ORDERED that the awards granted herein are subject to reallocation at trial.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.