Hatem v Hatem
2008 NY Slip Op 02791 [49 AD3d 812]
March 25, 2008
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, May 14, 2008


Sandra Elena Hatem, Respondent,
v
Albert Anthony Hatem, Appellant.

[*1] Albert Anthony Hatem, White Plains, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Melvin H. Bernheimer, P.C., Hicksville, N.Y. (Denise Luparello of counsel), for respondent.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from (1) a transcript of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lubell, J.), dated September 20, 2006, and (2), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court entered February 26, 2008, as, after a hearing, granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to modify an order of the same court (Liebowitz, J.), dated November 1, 2005, to the extent of, inter alia, reallocating the parties' pendente lite obligations and increasing his basic child support obligation.

Ordered that the appeal from the transcript is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a transcript (see Matter of Dwayne G., 264 AD2d 522 [1999]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the parties' circumstances had changed in the time between the entry of a prior pendente lite order and the entry of the order appealed from, and properly granted the plaintiff's request, inter alia, for an increase in the defendant's child support obligation.

Modifications of pendente lite awards should rarely be made by an appellate court, and then only under exigent circumstances, which do not exist here (see Swickle v Swickle, 47 AD3d 704 [2008]; DeVerna v DeVerna, 4 AD3d 323 [2004]). Fisher, J.P., Angiolillo, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.