Armstrong v. Armstrong

• Decision Date: 29 April 2010
• Citation: 72 A.D.3d 1409,900 N.Y.S.2d 476
• Parties: Nancy J. ARMSTRONG, Appellant-Respondent, v. Harold M. ARMSTRONG, Respondent-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

900 N.Y.S.2d 476 72 A.D.3d 1409 Nancy J. ARMSTRONG, Appellant-Respondent, v. Harold M. ARMSTRONG, Respondent-Appellant. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York. April 29, 2010.

Friedman & Molinsek, P.C., Delmar (Michael P. Friedman of counsel), for appellant-respondent.

Assaf & Mackenzie, P.L.L.C., Troy (Michael D. Assaf of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

Francisco Berry, Law Guardian, Ithaca.

Before PETERS, J.P., SPAIN, LAHTINEN, STEIN and GARRY, JJ.

LAHTINEN, J.

(1) Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Connolly, J.), entered December 29, 2008 in Albany County, which, among other things, denied plaintiff's motion to preclude defendant's testimony, and (2) cross appeals from a judgment of said court, entered January 12, 2009 in Albany County, among other things, granting plaintiff a divorce and ordering equitabledistribution of the parties' marital property, upon a decision of the court.

The parties were married in November 1995 and have one child (born in 1996). Plaintiff commenced this action for divorce in March 2006 alleging, among other things, cruel and inhuman treatment. Following extensive discovery, a lengthy nonjury trial was held. During the trial, plaintiff objected and sought preclusion of certain evidence allegedly not produced in discovery and, at the close of trial, plaintiff moved for, among other things, discovery sanctions and counsel fees. Supreme Court denied those aspects of the motionin a decision and order entered in December 2008 and plaintiff appealed.¹ Supreme Court rendered a detailed written decision addressing the trial issues, and that decision was incorporated into the judgment of divorce entered in January 2009. In its decision, Supreme Court, among other things, granted plaintiff a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment, awarded the parties joint legal custody of the child and granted plaintiff primary physical custody with liberal parenting time for defendant, directed defendant to pay $681.83 per month in child support, calculated the marital estate at $1,141,683.34 and awarded plaintiff 70% thereof, and declined to award plaintiff maintenance. Both parties appeal from the judgment.

We consider first plaintiff's argument that Supreme Court should have precluded defendant from introducing various proof at trial regarding his separate property as a sanction for failing to fully respond to her discovery demands. The trial court has broad discretion with respect to discovery ( see Cerasaro v. Cerasaro, 9 A.D.3d 663, 664, 781 N.Y.S.2d 375 [2004] ), including the appropriate penalty and, in such regard, "the remedy of preclusion is reserved for those instances where the offending party's lack of cooperation with disclosure was willful, deliberate, and contumacious" ( Kumar v. Kumar, 63 A.D.3d 1246, 1248, 881 N.Y.S.2d 518 [2009] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Ndulo v. Ndulo, 66 A.D.3d 1263, 1267, 888 N.Y.S.2d 236 [2009] ). Supreme Court noted that plaintiff had been directed at a conference three months before trial not to delay until the trial to seek resolution of any discovery issues, and yet she made no motion to preclude before trial. More importantly, Supreme Court found that plaintiff was not unduly prejudiced since she had access before the trial to the relevant information and the court concluded that defendant's conductwas not willful. These determinations are supported by the record. We are unpersuaded that Supreme Court abused its discretion with regard to the discovery issue.

Defendant contends that plaintiff failed to prove that she was entitled to a divorce based upon his cruel and inhuman treatment. "To prevail on that ground, 'the party seeking the divorce must establish that the other party's conduct so threatened his or her physical or mental well-being that it would be unsafe or improper to continue to cohabit with the offending party' " ( Redgrave v. Redgrave, 304 A.D.2d 1062, 1063, 759 N.Y.S.2d 233 [2003], quoting Shortis v. Shortis, 274 A.D.2d 880, 880-881, 711 N.Y.S.2d 578 [2000] ). "Supreme Court, as the trier of fact, is vested with broad discretion in determining whether a spouse's conduct rises to the level of cruel and inhuman treatment, and its assessment of witness credibility is entitled to deference" ( Xiaokang Xu v. Xiaoling Shirley He, 24 A.D.3d 862, 863, 804 N.Y.S.2d 867 [2005], lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 710, 813 N.Y.S.2d 46, 846 N.E.2d 477 [2006] [citations omitted]; see Freas v. Freas, 33 A.D.3d 1069, 1070, 822 N.Y.S.2d 798 [2006]; Myers v. Myers, 255 A.D.2d 711, 712, 680 N.Y.S.2d 690 [1998] ).

The marriage had been marked by ongoing contentiousness and both parties had commenced divorce actions earlier in the marriage. Plaintiff's proof at trial, which Supreme Court found credible on this issue, set forth defendant's controlling natureand ongoing abusive behavior. This included repeated verbal abuse in which he referred to her by the most vile derogative names. He called her by such names in front of her teenage daughter, who had been born during plaintiff's prior marriage that ended when her then-husband died. Defendant accused plaintiff within the hearing range of her teenage daughter of sleeping around while her then-husband (the teenage daughter's father) was in the hospital dying. He also stated within hearing range of the teenage daughter that plaintiff had sexual relations with her own father. He crudely insulted plaintiff's smell, her hair and other aspects of her physical appearance. As set forth in detail by Supreme Court, defendant, who pleaded guilty in 2005 to federal tax-related criminal conduct and served a prison sentence, indicated at various times to plaintiff that he was going to incriminate her despite her lack of involvement in his crimes. Defendant further referred to plaintiff as someone he had picked out of the "slums of Albany" and he accused her of infidelity when, in fact, his own infidelity was acknowledged at trial. Considering cumulatively this proof, as well as the many other incidents of abusive behavior by defendant detailed in the voluminous record, we find that Supreme Court acted within its discretion in concluding that plaintiff should be granted a divorce on the ground of cruel and unhuman treatment.

Turning to the issue of custody of the parties' child, the overriding concern is the best interests of the child and a host of well known factors are relevant in making that determination ( see Matter of Holle v. Holle, 55 A.D.3d 991, 991-992, 865 N.Y.S.2d 393 [2008]; Matter of Gast v. Gast, 50 A.D.3d 1189, 1189, 855 N.Y.S.2d 696 [2008] ). Supreme Court weighed and discussed the pertinent factors, it fully explained the reasons for its custody determination, and it conducted a Lincoln hearing with the child. The child's Law Guardian favors maintaining custody as crafted by Supreme Court. There is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the custody determination and we discern no persuasive reason to disturb it ( see generally Matter of Robinson v. Davis, 58 A.D.3d 1041, 1042, 872 N.Y.S.2d 587 [2009]; Matter of Anson v. Anson, 20 A.D.3d 603, 604, 798 N.Y.S.2d 185 [2005], lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 711, 806 N.Y.S.2d 161, 840 N.E.2d 130 [2005] ).

Next, we consider issues raised regarding defendant's child support obligation. The three-step analysis of a child support award involves: first, ascertaining combined parental income; second, multiplying that amount (up to $80,000) by the applicable statutory percentage (17% for one child) and allocating the result between the parties based on each parent's share of total income; and, third, determining additional support if combined income exceeds $80,000 by considering the pertinent statutory factors ( see Holterman v. Holterman, 3 N.Y.3d 1, 10-11, 781 N.Y.S.2d 458, 814 N.E.2d 765 [2004]; Matter of Cassano v. Cassano, 85 N.Y.2d 649, 653, 628 N.Y.S.2d 10, 651 N.E.2d 878 [1995] ). Plaintiff and the Law Guardian correctly point out that Supreme Court made a mathematical error in the third step of this analysis. Defendant's annual income was determined as $84,191.97 and plaintiff's as $45,170.10, for a total of $129,362.07. Defendant's proportionate share was 65%, resulting in a monthly obligation on the first $80,000 of $736.67. As for the income that exceeded $80,000, the court considered various relevant statutory factors and then assessed child support on 50% of the $49,362.07 excess, which resulted in an additional monthly payment of $227.27 (i.e., $49,362.07 x .50 x .17 x .65 / 12). However, instead ofadding this amount to $736.67, the court accidentally added it to a different number arriving at a total of $681.83 when, in fact, the correct total is $963.94. The judgment must be modified accordingly .²

Plaintiff also argues that Supreme Court erred in not imputingto defendant his potential earning capacity in his newly-established business as a consultant. "[C]ourts have considerable discretion in fashioning a child support award; when assessing a parent's income from which to determine his or her child support obligation, a court should consider factors such as the parent's gross (total) income as reported in the most recent federal income tax return, as well as additional income from sources other than employment and a parent's past income" ( Matter of Yarinsky v. Yarinsky, 36 A.D.3d 1135, 1137, 829 N.Y.S.2d 710 [2007] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted] ). Further, a court is "not bound by a parent's account of his or her own finances, and may impute income based upon a prior employment experience, as well as such parent's future earning capacity in light of that party's educational background, and underreported business activity or payment of personal expenses from business accounts" ( Matter of Rubley v. Longworth, 35 A.D.3d 1129, 1130, 825 N.Y.S.2d 839 [2006], lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 811, 834 N.Y.S.2d 720, 866 N.E.2d 1049 [2007] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; se...