DeCabrera v. Cabrera-Rosete

• Decision Date: 15 December 1987
• Docket Number: CABRERA-ROSET,A
• Citation: 70 N.Y.2d 879,524 N.Y.S.2d 176,518 N.E.2d 1168
• Parties: , 518 N.E.2d 1168 Karin F. DECABRERA, Respondent, v. Jorge A.ppellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 176

524 N.Y.S.2d 176

70 N.Y.2d 879, 518 N.E.2d 1168

Karin F. DECABRERA, Respondent, v.Jorge A. CABRERA-ROSETE, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Dec. 15, 1987.

Gerald Zuckerman and Jack Minoff, New York City, for appellant.

William D. London and A. Albert Buonamici, White Plains, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURTMEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division, 125 A.D.2d 1010, 508 N.Y.S.2d 964, should be affirmed, with costs.

As found by Trial Term and affirmed by the Appellate Division, approximately one year after their marriage, plaintiff wife and defendant husband in May 1979 purchased a cooperative apartment on East 72nd Street in Manhattan.The entire purchase price--$182,000--was paid from money in plaintiff's account in a German bank, which she had opened prior to marriage with a $200,000 gift from her father.Before and after the purchase, the parties agreed that defendant would transfer all of his right, title and interest in the apartment to plaintiff upon her request.The stock certificate representing ownership of the apartment was registered in the names of both spouses to satisfy income requirements of the cooperative.However, on May 4, 1979, defendant signed a statement confirming that the apartment was paid for by plaintiff, and that upon plaintiff's request he would transfer his rights in it to her.In June 1982, defendant moved out of the apartment, having committed various cruel and inhuman acts which endangered plaintiff's physical and mental well-being, rendering it unsafe and improper for her to continue living with him.Prior and subsequent to moving out, defendant refused and neglected to provide for the support of plaintiff.On a number of occasions, plaintiff requested that he endorse to her the stock certificate representing ownership of the apartment, but defendant refused.Financial statements of both parties were before the trial court.Defendant acknowledges that he is (and was at the time of the marriage) owner of a home in Darien, Connecticut, as his financial statement revealed.

Following trial of plaintiff's action for divorce and related relief, judgment was granted dissolving the marriage.Relying on Kobylack v. Kobylack, 110 Misc.2d 402, 442 N.Y.S.2d 392, mod.96 A.D.2d 831, 465 N.Y.S.2d 581, revd.62 N.Y.2d 399, 477 N.Y.S.2d 109, 465 N.E.2d 829, andBarnes v. Barnes, 106 A.D.2d 535, 483 N.Y.S.2d 358, which the trial court found closely akin to the facts of this case, the court declined to award defendant any equitable share in the apartment, and additionally ordered defendant to pay $10,000 in counsel fees and $24,591.31 for "legal necessities" consisting of apartment maintenance fees and utilities.The Appellate Division affirmed.Before usdefendant now urges that the courts below erred in three respects--first, in failing to grant him a share of the appreciated value of the apartment; second, in awarding plaintiffcounsel fees; and third, in compelling him to reimburse plaintiff for her expenditures for...