Fishman v. Fishman

• Decision Date: 02 September 2020
• Docket Number: Index No. 1022/13,2017–06736
• Citation: 186 A.D.3d 1199,130 N.Y.S.3d 73
• Parties: Tzvi FISHMAN, appellant, v. Toby FISHMAN, respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

186 A.D.3d 1199
130 N.Y.S.3d 73

Tzvi FISHMAN, appellant,
v.
Toby FISHMAN, respondent.

2017–06736
Index No. 1022/13

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

Argued—January 2, 2020
September 2, 2020

Esther Noe Engelson, Suffern, NY, for appellant.

Law Offices of Bruce W. Minsky, P.C., New Hempstead, NY, for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

186 A.D.3d 1200

ORDERED that the second amended judgment of divorce is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The parties were married in November 2004, and have two children. After approximately nine years of marriage, the plaintiff commenced this action for a divorce and ancillary relief. The Supreme Court conducted a nonjury trial, and subsequently issued a second amended judgment entered June 12, 2017, upon a decision dated June 8, 2016. The second amended judgment, inter alia, awarded the defendant maintenance in the sum of $1,750 per month, ending two years from July 1, 2016, directed the plaintiff to pay child support in the sum of $2,503.84 per month, equitably distributed the marital property, and awarded the defendant counsel fees in the sum of $25,000. The plaintiff appeals.

The amount and duration of spousal maintenance is an issue generally committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and each case is to be resolved upon its own unique facts and circumstances (see Brody v. Brody, 137 A.D.3d 830, 831, 27 N.Y.S.3d 186 ). The overriding purpose of a maintenance award is to give the spouse economic independence, and it should be awarded for a duration that would provide the recipient with enough time to become self-supporting (see D'Iorio v. D'Iorio, 135 A.D.3d 693, 695, 24 N.Y.S.3d 325 ). Here, considering the relevant factors (see Domestic Relations Law former § 236[B][6][a] ), including the length of the parties' marriage, the parties' age and health, their present and future earning capacities, and the defendant's ability and length of time needed to become self-supporting, the Supreme Court's maintenance award was a provident exercise of discretion (see Charap v. Willett, 84 A.D.3d 1000, 1002, 924 N.Y.S.2d 433 ). Moreover, contrary to the...