Cusumano v. Cusumano

• Decision Date: 27 June 2012
• Citation: 947 N.Y.S.2d 175,96 A.D.3d 988,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 05131
• Parties: Maria CUSUMANO, respondent, v. Dominick CUSUMANO, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

96 A.D.3d 988
947 N.Y.S.2d 175
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 05131

Maria CUSUMANO, respondent,
v.
Dominick CUSUMANO, appellant.

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

June 27, 2012.

Anthony A. Capetola, Williston Park, N.Y. (Robert P. Johnson of counsel), for appellant.

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, RANDALL T. ENG, and LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.

[96 A.D.3d 988]In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Crecca, J.), dated November 18, 2010, as, upon a decision of the same court dated July 16, 2010, made after a nonjury trial, in effect, determined that Joseph Cusumano & Son, Inc., was marital property, set the valuation date of Joseph Cusumano & Son, Inc., for equitable distribution purposes as the date of the commencement of the action, determined that the value of Joseph Cusumano & Son, Inc., for purposes of equitable distribution was $794,000, directed that he was solely responsible for any tax payments, interest, and penalties due in connection with certain joint tax liability of the parties, imputed to him a yearly income of $400,000, awarded the plaintiff child support in the sum of $1,371.15 per week, awarded the plaintiff maintenance in the sum of $6,000 per month for a period of seven years, awarded the plaintiff an attorney's fee in the sum of $107,500, and awarded the plaintiff a valuation expert fee in the sum of $56,000.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

A trial court has broad discretion to select an appropriate [96 A.D.3d 989]date for measuring the value of a marital asset ( see Mesholam v. Mesholam, 11 N.Y.3d 24, 28, 862 N.Y.S.2d 453, 892 N.E.2d 846;

[947 N.Y.S.2d 176]

McSparron v. McSparron, 87 N.Y.2d 275, 287, 639 N.Y.S.2d 265, 662 N.E.2d 745;Taverna v. Taverna, 56 A.D.3d 461, 462, 867 N.Y.S.2d 479;Kirshenbaum v. Kirshenbaum, 203 A.D.2d 534, 535, 611 N.Y.S.2d 228). Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in using the date of the commencement of the action as the valuation date for Joseph Cusumano & Son, Inc. ( see Rich–Wolfe v. Wolfe, 83 A.D.3d 1359, 1359–1360, 922 N.Y.S.2d 593;Daniel v. Friedman, 22 A.D.3d 707, 708, 803 N.Y.S.2d 129). Furthermore, in determining the value of that corporation for equitable distribution purposes, the Supreme Court properly relied upon the opinion of the...