DeNigro v. DeNigro

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Citation: DeNigro v. DeNigro, 543 N.Y.S.2d 593, 152 A.D.2d 951 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
• Decision Date: 12 July 1989
• Parties: Josephine DeNIGRO, Appellant, v. John N. DeNIGRO, Respondent.

Page 593

543 N.Y.S.2d 593

152 A.D.2d 951

Josephine DeNIGRO, Appellant, v. John N. DeNIGRO, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

July 12, 1989.

Leon R. Koziol, Utica, for appellant.

Joseph Mascaro, Utica, for respondent.

Before DILLON, P.J., and CALLAHAN, GREEN, PINE and DAVIS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

The trial court properly determined on the merits that defendant's divorce decree obtained in Guam in 1985 was entitled to comity. The court erred, however, in summarily dismissing plaintiff's claim for equitable distribution without a hearing and without enumerating the statutory factors it considered (see Domestic Relations Law § 236B[5][d]. The record indicates that each party has a pension which constitutes marital property subject to equitable distribution (see, Majauskas v. Majauskas, 61 N.Y.2d 481, 474 N.Y.S.2d 699, 463 N.E.2d 15). There may be other marital property as well (see, Price v. Price, 69 N.Y.2d 8, 511 N.Y.S.2d 219, 503 N.E.2d 684). Plaintiff may be entitled to a portion of the marital assets based upon her contribution and efforts throughout the marriage (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236B[5][d][6]; Arvantides v. Arvantides, 64 N.Y.2d 1033, 1034, 489 N.Y.S.2d 58, 478 N.E.2d 199; cf., Wegman v. Wegman, 123 A.D.2d 220, 509 N.Y.S.2d 342). Since the record before us is inadequate to make our own findings we remit the matter for a hearing on the issues of equitable distribution of marital property and related counsel fees (see, Norgauer v. Norgauer, 126 A.D.2d 957, 511 N.Y.S.2d 731; Woertler v. Woertler, 110 A.D.2d 947, 948-949, 488 N.Y.S.2d 265; Pacifico v. Pacifico, 101 A.D.2d 709, 475 N.Y.S.2d 952; cf., Damiano v. Damiano, 94 A.D.2d 132, 463 N.Y.S.2d 477).

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Oneida County.