LAW.coLAW.co

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

New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division2010-01-21
69 A.D.3d 501892 N.Y.S.2d 757

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

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, EJ., Tom, Sweeny, Catterson and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.