Ilona Lebovics v. Samuel Lebovics

[34 A.D.2d 783 Page 783] Defendant's contention that the motion for temporary alimony and counsel fees, which was made during the pendency of the
conciliation proceeding, should have been made to or referred to and considered by the Conciliation Commissioner instead
of Special Term is without merit. We construe the coexistence of sections 211 and 215-e of the Domestic Relations Law as permitting
the initiation, consideration and determination of such motions in the Supreme Court and as also permitting the initiation
and consideration thereof in the Conciliation Bureau and the determination thereof by the Supreme Court upon the submission
of findings by the Conciliation Commissioner after a hearing. In our opinion, by confining the issues to be considered on
such motions to those bearing on financial need and ability, section 211 of the Domestic Relations Law (1) statutorily implemented
a similar limitation construed by this court to be applicable to such motions brought during the conciliation period under
section 236 of the Domestic Relations Law prior to the enactment of section 211 (Loretta B. [ Anonymous ] v. Gerard B. [ Anonymous
], 30 A.D.2d 347), (2) statutorily eliminated from consideration any acrimony-producing criteria which could be detrimental
to the conciliation effort during the statutory conciliation period and (3) rendered either forum at that posture available
for the initiation and consideration of such motions, with the authority of ultimate determination thereof remaining vested
in the Supreme Court. We are also of the opinion that, predicated on what was adduced below in the parties' conflicting affidavits,
the award of temporary alimony of $30 per week should not be disturbed, although we also note that that award should [34
A.D.2d 783 Page 784]