Barr v. Barr
| Decision Date | 05 December 1994 |
| Citation | 620 N.Y.S.2d 262,210 A.D.2d 192 |
| Parties | Michael BARR, Appellant-Respondent, v. Ellen BARR, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Harold A. Seidenberg, Nyack (Toni Bracconeri, of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Sosnow & Freed, New York City (Sherman F. Sosnow, of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
In consolidated actions for divorce and ancillary relief, the husband appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Stolarik, J.), entered December 30, 1992, as directed that the defendant wife receive a credit of 1/2 of any mortgage and tax payments made by her with respect to the marital premises upon the ultimate sale thereof pursuant to the terms of the judgment, directed the parties to share the expenses related to the college education of their younger child in accordance with their ability to so provide, and awarded the defendant wife $4,166.67 per month, as maintenance, commencing October 1, 1992, and continuing for a period not to exceed seven years, and the wife cross-appeals from stated portions of the same judgment.
ORDERED that the wife is awarded one bill of costs.
Contrary to the husband's contention, the court's maintenance award was proper in view of the statutory factors to be considered in awarding maintenance (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][6]; Sperling v. Sperling, 165 A.D.2d 338, 567 N.Y.S.2d 538).
Also, the court properly determined that, as part of the equitable distribution of the parties' marital property, upon the sale of the marital premises, the wife will be entitled to a credit of 1/2 of any mortgage and tax payments she makes with respect to the premises (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][5]; see, e.g., Phelan v. Phelan, 148 A.D.2d 433, 538 N.Y.S.2d 827; Friedenberg v. Friedenberg, 136 A.D.2d 593, 523 N.Y.S.2d 578; cf., Berg v. Berg, 186 A.D.2d 236, 588 N.Y.S.2d 340; Ryan v. Ryan, 186 A.D.2d 245, 588 N.Y.S.2d 341; Krantz v. Krantz, 175 A.D.2d 863, 573 N.Y.S.2d 736).
We have examined the husband's remaining contention and find it to be without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Korn v. Levick
-
Goddard v. Goddard
... ... court did not err in requiring the parties to share equally in any late charges or legal fees associated with the mortgage on the house (see, Barr v. Barr, 210 A.D.2d 192, 620 N.Y.S.2d 262), since it was the responsibility of both parties to maintain the house and keep it in good condition so ... ...
- Ramirez v. City of NY
- McKithen v. City of Ny