Cook v. Cook
Decision Date | 14 March 1997 |
Citation | 656 N.Y.S.2d 1000,237 A.D.2d 891 |
Parties | Bryan F. COOK, Respondent, v. Cynthia A. COOK, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Karen Smith Callanan, P.C., Rochester, for Appellant.
Anita C. Miller, Rochester, for Respondent.
"In determining questions of maintenance, the authority of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court" (Marino v. Marino, 229 A.D.2d 971, 972, 645 N.Y.S.2d 252, citing Baumgart v. Baumgart, 199 A.D.2d 1049, 1049-1050, 605 N.Y.S.2d 610). In view of the standard of living established during the marriage, the great disparity in the parties' incomes and earning capacities and the need of defendant for a reasonable period of time to establish her career (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][6][a] ), we conclude that the maintenance awarded by Supreme Court is inadequate in both amount and duration. We therefore modify the judgment by increasing the maintenance award to $2,500 per month for a period of four years (see, Lampard v. Lampard, 219 A.D.2d 835, 632 N.Y.S.2d 368; White v. White, 204 A.D.2d 825, 828, 611 N.Y.S.2d 951, lv. dismissed 84 N.Y.2d 977, 622 N.Y.S.2d 916, 647 N.E.2d 122).
We further conclude that defendant's student loans constitute a marital debt and that the court erred in failing to allocate that debt in the same 50/50 proportion as it distributed the marital property (see, Savage v. Savage, 155 A.D.2d 336, 337, 547 N.Y.S.2d 306; 48A N.Y.Jur.2d, Domestic Relations, § 2513, at 270). We therefore further modify the judgment by directing plaintiff to pay one half of the balance of defendant's student loans.
Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Bergin, J.--Maintenance.)
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Spinner v. Spinner
...by the plaintiff in pursuing his degree ( Chamberlain v. Chamberlain , 24 A.D.3d 589, 594, 808 N.Y.S.2d 352 ; see Cook v. Cook , 237 A.D.2d 891, 892, 656 N.Y.S.2d 1000 ). Accordingly, the defendant's 25% share of that debt should have been set off against her distributive award of the plain......
- Jacob B., Matter of, 6
- Cook v. Cook