Recent Decisions

Leva v. Leva, 155 A.D.3d 707 (2d Dept. 2017):

Court awarded non-titled Wife 50% of two (2) real estate properties acquired during the parties’ marriage through a corporation owned by the Husband’s family, holding that because the properties were acquired during the marriage, they are presumed to be marital property and Husband failed to meet his burden in rebutting that presumption.

Cravo v. Diegel, 163 A.D.3d 920 (2d Dept. 2018):  

Reiterating that “[e]quitable distribution does not necessarily mean equal distribution ” (Guha v Guha, 61 AD3d 634, 634 [2009], quoting Evans v Evans, 57 AD3d 718, 719 [2008]; see Halley-Boyce v Boyce, 108 AD3d at 504), the Appellate Division affirmed the lower Court’s Order awarding the defendant only 45% of the value of the marital residence and 45% distributive share of the marital bank accounts and retirement accounts, based on the defendant’s modest contributions to the marital estate.

Santangelo v. Santangelo, 163 A.D.3d 599 (2d Dept. 2018):

Appellate Court affirmed the lower court’s award of maintenance to the defendant in the amount of $3,000.00 per month for a 4 year period in an 18 year marriage (although were living separately for approximately 3 years prior to the commencement of the action), where the plaintiff worked as an attorney and the defendant, a college graduate with a real estate license, only sporadically worked outside the home throughout the marriage.  Appellate Court held the amount and duration of the maintenance award was reasonable as “[m]aintenance is designed to give the spouse economic independence, and should continue only as long as is required to render the recipient self-supporting.”

Lashlee v. Lashlee, 161 A.D.3d 843 (2d Dept. 2018):

In connection with calculating child support, the Court imputed income to the defendant in the amount of $50,000.00 based upon his past earnings, education and future earning capacity.

Trent v. Alburg, 155 A.D.3d 881 (2d Dept. 2017):

Appellate Court upheld the lower court’s Order directing the Father to pay college expenses, however held that the Support Magistrate’s order should have included a provision awarding the father a room and board credit against his child support obligation for those periods when the child primarily resides at college.

Andrade v. Salvador, 160 A.D.3d 826 (2d. Dept. 2018):

Appellate Court upheld the lower court’s order awarding the Mother sole custody of the parties children, finding “the mother is able to provide a better home environment for the children, is better able to provide for the children’s emotional and intellectual development, and, in contrast to the father, will not impede the children’s relationship with the noncustodial parent.”

Abramson v. Shaw, 154 A.D.3d 744 (2d Dept. 2017):

Affirmed the Family Court correctly awarded Father sole legal and physical custody of the children, which was in the best interests of the children, as “[o]ne of the primary responsibilities of a custodial parent is to assure meaningful contact between the children and the noncustodial parent, and the willingness of a parent to assure such meaningful contact between the children and the other parent is a factor to be considered in making a custody determination”