During a contested divorce proceeding in New York, the motion court had denied the husband’s request for temporary spousal maintenance from his former wife, pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 236(B). The husband appealed, contending that the motion court erred in denying his request because, among other arguments, he allegedly had no income from his start-up venture and, in any event, discovery delays warranted temporary maintenance. Blank Rome represented the wife-appellee in the temporary maintenance appeal.  

On appeal, the court unanimously ruled against the husband, rejected each of his arguments, and affirmed the motion court’s application of the formula under DRL § 236(B)(5-a) and its denial of temporary maintenance. The court emphasized that exigent circumstances were required before a pendente lite award should be modified and found that there were no exigent circumstances here, especially because the husband had not filed his motion for temporary spousal support until one year after the divorce was commenced. The appellate court also found that the motion court had providently exercised its discretion in imputing $300,000 in income to defendant based on his past income and demonstrated earning potential, especially considering the steady employment he maintained throughout the marriage and his age, education, and industry experience. Nor did the court find persuasive the husband’s claim that he was presently earning no income from his start-up venture; the court emphasized that he failed to explain why he could not supplement his income or seek alternative employment. Finally, the court found that his claims of discovery delays did not support an award of temporary spousal maintenance.