Cervoni v. Cervoni

• Decision Date: 14 July 2016
• Citation: 34 N.Y.S.3d 792,141 A.D.3d 918,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 05538
• Parties: Maria CERVONI, Respondent, v. Carlo CERVONI, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

141 A.D.3d 918
34 N.Y.S.3d 792
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 05538

Maria CERVONI, Respondent,
v.
Carlo CERVONI, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

July 14, 2016.

34 N.Y.S.3d 792

Jackson Bergman, LLP, Binghamton (Benjamin K. Bergman of counsel), for appellant.

Richard J. Grace, Binghamton, for respondent.

Before: GARRY, J.P., EGAN JR., LYNCH, DEVINE and MULVEY, JJ.

DEVINE, J.

141 A.D.3d 919

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Connerton, J.), entered March 2, 2015 in Broome County, ordering, among other things, equitable distribution of the parties' marital property, upon a decision of the court.

Plaintiff (hereinafter the wife) and defendant (hereinafter the husband) were married in 1975 and have no unemancipated children. The wife commenced this divorce action in 2013, asserting an irretrievable breakdown in the marriage (see Domestic Relations Law § 170[7] ). Following a nonjury trial, Supreme Court issued a November 2014 decision in which it found that the grounds for divorce had been established and outlined the details of its equitable distribution and maintenance

34 N.Y.S.3d 793

awards. Supreme Court issued a judgment of divorce that incorporated the terms of that decision, and the husband appeals.

The husband first argues that Supreme Court erred in ordering him to pay the wife $1,000 a month in maintenance for 10 years. The amount and duration of a maintenance award are a matter within the sound discretion of Supreme Court, and the award will not be disturbed so long as “the statutory factors and the parties' predivorce standard of living” were properly considered (Murray v. Murray, 101 A.D.3d 1320, 1322, 956 N.Y.S.2d 252 [2012], lv. dismissed 20 N.Y.3d 1085, 965 N.Y.S.2d 74, 987 N.E.2d 635 [2013] ; accord Robinson v. Robinson, 133 A.D.3d 1185, 1186, 21 N.Y.S.3d 392 [2015] ). Supreme Court made a detailed analysis in which it considered the then-applicable statutory factors and, contrary to the husband's contention, it was not required to “apply each and every factor set forth in the statute” in doing so (Robinson v. Robinson, 133 A.D.3d at 1186, 21 N.Y.S.3d 392 ; see Domestic Relations Law § 236[B] [former (6) ]; Curley v. Curley, 125 A.D.3d 1227, 1228, 4 N.Y.S.3d 676 [2015] ).

As to whether the award constituted an abuse of discretion, the husband is self-employed by a construction company that he founded in 1985, and he acknowledged that he paid for essentially all of his personal obligations using corporate funds. Supreme Court aptly observed, as a result, that the husband had far greater financial resources than his lack of personal banking accounts and meager reported income would suggest. In contrast, the wife earned a bit over $22,000 in 2013, moved in with her adult son upon leaving the marital residence and was unlikely to significantly improve her earning capacity. Supreme Court relied upon the income disparity between the parties in fashioning its award of maintenance and, particularly given the length of the marriage and the financial sacrifices made by the wife in order to act as caregiver for the parties' children and provide the family with health insurance, we

...