Ida Light v. Harry Light

Applications for temporary alimony should not be made or encouraged unless there is genuine necessity (Haas v. Haas, 271 App. Div. 107; see, Hunter v. Hunter, 10 A.D.2d 291, 297). In the case at bar, plaintiff admitted joint ownership with defendant of stocks and bonds totaling about $15,000 in market value and that she had full control of a Totten Trust savings bank account in the amount of $10,000. On this record we are unable to say that plaintiff has demonstrated that she has any need for the present award of alimony pendente lite or of counsel fees to enable her to carry on the action (Kaplan v. Kaplan, 25 A.D.2d 563). The action should proceed to trial promptly. If warranted by the proof, the trial court may make an appropriate allowance nunc pro tunc as of the return day of the original motion for alimony pendente lite (Margel v. Margel, 22 A.D.2d 919). The decision upon this appeal is without prejudice to any such determination.