C. v. R.
| Decision Date | 17 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | REDACTED |
| Citation | 118 N.Y.S.3d 379 (Table),65 Misc.3d 1205 (A) |
| Parties | C., Plaintiff, v. R., Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Coffinas & Lusthaus, By: Maria Coffinas, Esq., Attorney for Plaintiff, 186 Joralemon Street, Brooklyn, New York 11201
Felder, Felder and Nottes, P.C., By: Raoul Felder, Esq. and Daniel Nottes, Esq., Attorney for Defendant, 437 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10022
The parties were married on June 7, 2008. Plaintiff commenced this action on October 27, 2014 by summon and verified complaint. The parties engaged in extensive litigation during the intervening years: more than twenty-five (25) motion sequences have been filed in this action. This Court has issued numerous written decisions herein.
On February 5, 2018, this Court issued a 74-page written decision deciding motion sequence No.25 in which the Court found that the plaintiff installed spyware on the defendant's iPhone which he used to intercept her confidential communications, including those between her and her attorneys in this action and her and her treating psychiatrist and subsequently engaged in spoliation of evidence related thereto.1 In a written decision dated February 5, 2018, the Court inter alia struck plaintiff's pleading seeking spousal support and equitable distribution.
At the time motion sequence #25 was decided, the trial on the issues of custody and parenting time had concluded and the decision was sub judice . Thereafter, the Court issued a 44-page (not published) written decision on custody and parenting time dated June 22, 2018 in which the plaintiff-father was awarded legal and residential custody of the parties' two (2) minor twin children, a son, C.C., and a daughter, M.C., who were born in March 2009 (Judicial Notice #F5). The allegations and findings of the Court related to the custody and parenting time dispute are fully detailed in that written decision. At this time, all of the defendant's parenting time with the children is supervised pursuant to a consent stipulation between the parties.
The trial on the financial issues between the parties was held on June 27, 2018; June 28, 2018; July 20, 2018; July 30, 2018; August 3, 2018; November 7, 2018; November 8, 2018; and November 13, 2018. The plaintiff and the defendant testified on their own behalf and each called witnesses, including real estate appraisers. At the conclusion of trial, counsel for the parties requested that written summations be due on January 4, 2019 (Tr. 11/13/18, p. 45); however, on consent, counsel for the parties requested that the summation date be adjourned to April 8, 2019 by written stipulation.
The plaintiff-husband is 55 years of age. He graduated undergraduate studies from Yale University summa cum laude and he attended a Ph.D. program at the University of California Berkley in Comparative Literature but did not complete the program (Defendant's exhibit F-MMM in evidence on consent). He was a Fulbright scholar (Tr. 11/08/18, p. 55). He has worked in the investor relations field for "about 17 years..." (Tr. 7/30/18, p. 75) and he was president of an international investor relations company until shortly before he commenced this litigation. He worked as a freelance consultant throughout the duration of this litigation. He testified on cross-examination that he is the only party responsible for reporting his gross receipts and sales on behalf of his freelance company.
The defendant-wife is 54 years of age. She earned a bachelors of arts degree from Connecticut College and a Masters degree in Education from Columbia University. Defendant testified that she has worked as a copy editor since 2004. She testified that during the litigation she was only employed "very sporadically" as a "freelance copy editor at a number of different magazines" and that she only worked "[m]aybe three weeks total" in 2017. She testified that she was not currently employed at the time of trial.
The parties' so-ordered consent pendente lite stipulation dated January 29, 2015 provided that defendant would pay plaintiff $5,500 monthly in child support (paragraph 1; plaintiff's exhibit F-27C).2
Plaintiff offered into evidence as plaintiff's exhibit F-27 on consent an accounting of alleged child support add-on arrears pursuant to the parties' October 9, 2015 so-ordered stipulation by which defendant was 85% financially responsible for the children's add-on expenses from (paragraph 4; plaintiff's exhibit F-27). Plaintiff's accounting requests reimbursement in the sum of $16,618.93 ($19,551.68 x .85 = $16,618.93). Defendant did not dispute the alleged add-on expenses at trial. As such, plaintiff is granted the arrears. Defendant shall pay $16,618.93 to plaintiff as and for child support add-on arrears within sixty (60) days of service of the judgment of divorce with notice of entry. If defendant fails to do so, plaintiff's counsel may enter a judgment, together with statutory costs and interest from the date of default, of any unpaid sum with the Office of the County Clerk upon ten (10) days notice to defendant by certified and regular mail of an affirmation of non-compliance with no need to seek further Court intervention.
Plaintiff's 2015 income tax return (plaintiff's exhibit F-18 in evidence) lists total income of $243,643: $99,000, maintenance; and $144,643, net business income. On cross-examination, plaintiff conceded that he took approximately $65,000 in Schedule C deductions from his gross receipts of $207,133 in gross receipts (Tr. 8/03/18, p. 28-29).3 He testified that he had an overseas client in 2015 but he denied that that client paid him more than $200,000 in 2015 (Tr. 8/03/18, p. 31).
Plaintiff conceded on cross-examination that certain deducted expenses listed in his income tax returns included charges for the marital residence: including internet ($1,845) and telephone expenses ($2,466) in 2015 (Tr. 8/03/18, p. 32). He testified that he uses the same tax accountant as defendant.
Plaintiff's 2016 income tax return (plaintiff's exhibit F-17 in evidence) lists total income of $232,443: $99,000, maintenance; and $133,443, net business income. On cross-examination, plaintiff conceded that he took $35,299 in Schedule C deductions from his gross receipts of $168,742 (Tr. 8/03/18, p. 26-27).
Plaintiff testified that his "largest source of income" in 2017 was from defendant's pendente lite maintenance payments and "I also had the fees from my consulting clients." (Tr. 7/30/18, p. 76). Plaintiff's 2017 income tax return (Plaintiff's exhibit F-16) lists income of $99,000 as maintenance; $70,059 as business income; and $220,209 as IRA distributions, for a combined total of $389,268. Plaintiff reported $15,743 in depreciation from his business in 2017 (Tr. 7/30/18, p. 113). He also reported $5,895 in other expenses including cable and internet access ($,1639) and telephone ($1,769). Plaintiff conceded on cross-examination that "a portion" of these expenses are for personal use (Tr. 7/30/18, p. 119).
Plaintiff testified on cross-examination that in 2017 he made $792 monthly in charitable contributions despite having mounting debts and withdrawing more than $220,000 from his IRA because he felt he had a "commitment to certain organizations..." (Tr. 7/30/18, p. 121) while he testified on cross-examination that he elected not to sell personal property such as a luxury Rolex watch.
Plaintiff testified on cross-examination that, as of November 2018, he had earned income of approximately $150,000 gross in 1099s from freelance work for 2018 (Tr. 11/08/18, pp. 52-54). Plaintiff conceded on cross-examination that his mother gave him $15,000 in February 2018 that was not disclosed on his affidavit of net worth because that took place after he signed his affidavit of net worth (Tr. 11/08/18, p. 63).
Plaintiff lists his monthly expenses as follows in his affidavit of net worth, dated May 16, 20184 : mortgage, $2,6345 ; gas, $82.00; electric, $419.00; telephone (landline/cable/internet), $195.00; mobile telephone, $182.006 ; alarm, $56.00; water, $70.00; groceries, $1,067.007 ; dining out, $402.00; dining out with kids, $445.00; treats for kids, $97.00; coffee shops, $85.00; clothing for himself, $169.00; clothing for children, $225.00; dry cleaning, $79.00; unreimbursed medical, $35.00; unreimbursed dental, $30.00; unreimbursed optical, $34.00; unreimbursed pharmaceutical, $50.00; unreimbursed surgical, nursing, hospital, $10.00; psychiatrist for himself, $235.00; children's psychiatrist, $250.00; household repairs, $650.00; gardening, $35.00; extermination, $27.00; other household expenses, $23.00; housekeeper, $360.00; babysitter, $1,550.00; automotive gas, $13.00; parking/tolls, $11.00; rental cars with children, $204.008 ; rental car (self), $15.00; school supplies for children, $64.00; children's extracurricular activities, $444.00; vacations, $1,475.00; movies, $130.00; musical, $45.00; summer camp, $240.00; birthday parties for children, $95.00; museums for children, $40.00; art supplies for children, $29.00; federal income tax, $8,223.83; state income tax, $2,080.66; NYC local tax, $1,164.83; social security/medicare tax, $824.91; barber, $20.00; toiletries, $30.00; books/newspapers, $97.00; gifts to others, $150.00; charitable contributions, $792.00; religious organization dues, $33.00; commutation expenses, $91.00; children's allowances, $40.00; one-time penalty to liquidate IRA, $1,835.08; bank fees, $48.00; cut flowers, $10.00: TOTAL monthly expenses, $27,559.31.
Plaintiff lists total assets of $12,902.66 as follows: checking, $12,463.66; savings, $0; marital residence, $2,325,0009 ; retirement accounts totaling, $010 ; jewelry, art, etc, "unknown"; investment accounts, $439.00.
Plaintiff lists total...
To continue reading
Request your trial