E.G. v. D.G.
| Decision Date | 07 November 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. XX/14.,XX/14. |
| Citation | 43 N.Y.S.3d 766 (Table) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
| Parties | E.G., Plaintiff, v. D.G., Defendant. |
David Rosoff, Esq., Carton & Rosoff, White Plains, Attorney for Plaintiff.
Gus Dimopoulos, Esq., Maniatis & Dimopoulos, Tuckahoe, Attorney for Defendant.
The plaintiff commenced this action for divorce on September 11, 2012. The parties were married on—-, 1990 and are each 50 years old. They have two children; N., age 23, and A., age 21.
The trial of this action commenced on June 3, 2014 and continued for ten days on and off until completion on June 26, 2014. Post Trial Memorandums were received in July, 2014. Plaintiff was granted a divorce after inquest based on DRL § 170(7), pending the hearing and determination of the ancillary issues.
During the trial, the parties presented testimony and evidence that proves the American dream is still alive and well. In the case of Mr. G., he started out with a cart, selling hot dogs in New York City, and worked his way into owning a successful restaurant in Manhattan, a home in Westchester, a vacation home upstate, a beach residence (all without debt) and several apartment buildings. Unfortunately, the parties lost something of themselves along the way. Tragically, not only did they end up divorcing each other but the parties' son assisted his father in removing financial records from the marital residence and actually came into Court and testified against his mother in an act evidencing the son's own greed, fueled by the father's gift to him of a building as well as the family restaurant. For her part, plaintiff tried to cast defendant and her son as abusive and threatening, but the Court found that while her husband was certainly controlling, the acts she testified to failed to rise to the level of a family offense within the context of DRL § 252 and Article 8 of the Family Court Act. Moreover, she was not as financially naive as she purported to be. The balance of the case centered around the existence of the parties' assets, their division and the plaintiff's claim for maintenance.
The parties first met in 1986. They were engaged in 1989 and married in 1990. Defendant, who was from Greece, started with a hot dog cart in New York City in the late 1980's. Plaintiff told him that being a hot dog vendor would not give him much respect and advised him to move indoors. Not only would he get more respect, she offered but he would make more money. She credits her suggestion with spurring him to buy an interest in P.J.T. in 1989 (hereinafter the "Restaurant") (before they were married). Plaintiff, who is from Greek heritage but born in the United states, worked in a temporary employment agency until early in the marriage, 1990–1991. She insinuated that defendant did not really purchase B. N.'s T. until 1990 because, "all the payments show 1990", she testified. Moreover, he did not initially go to the Restaurant but, instead, went to a restaurant in New Rochelle, she claimed. Defendant later introduced evidence of the purchase of B. N.'s T. in 1988. (See Tr. Ex. 22). Defendant testified that he bought P.J.T. on——, 1988. He owned 50% with his former partner G.S. Mr. S. also testified and confirmed that they bought the Restaurant in—, 1988. The purchase price was $460,000 with a $395,000 mortgage. Each partner paid $32,500. They began paying the Note on the Restaurant in March or April, 1988 of $5,700 monthly. Defendant testified he worked in another restaurant for a while to see how to operate a restaurant and to help out G. After a couple of months, he began operating the Restaurant. The checks presented as Tr. Ex. 23 show payments beginning in 1991. However defendant, as well as his prior business partner, testified that they began in 1988.
Plaintiff claimed defendant was in control of everything. She only received $100 every week for groceries when they were first married. For any other expenses, she had to ask defendant for the money. She asked her husband to set up a joint checking account to which he finally agreed but, she claimed, there was never much money in the account. This was a point of contention for plaintiff throughout the marriage. She wanted more of a partnership, access to money and consultation regarding economic decisions affecting the family and her husband wanted to control their finances and make financial decisions on his own.
When plaintiff got part time jobs, her husband got aggravated, she claimed. It was not worth the hassle and she had responsibilities at home. She did not work in the Restaurant when the kids were little, but as they got older, in the late 1990's, she began to work there. Defendant would ask his wife to work if someone was absent from the Restaurant such as one of the managers or if defendant was out. In the late 1990's plaintiff took phone orders and ran the register. At times, she was the only manager at the Restaurant. In early 2002–2003, her husband often went to Greece for two weeks at a time because his mother was ill and plaintiff managed the Restaurant. She tallied up the sales, dealt with employee disputes and paid for supplies-with cash from the register. Her father-in-law came from Greece in 2004 and defendant wanted her home to help care for him. She never worked except in the Restaurant after 2004. Plaintiff tried to counsel defendant regarding his employment styles. She claimed he mistreated his employees, used improper disciplinary tactics such as withholding pay for minor infractions and, in fact, was sued by an employee and paid $85,000 to settle a dispute in 2005.
Plaintiff also testified that defendant had several relatives on the books who never worked at the Restaurant, including K.G. who has lived in Athens, Greece since 1990 (he came two times to visit with his family for two weeks), V. G., defendant's uncle, (who lived in Greece since 1986 and visited the United States one time since 1986 for two weeks) and his wife, T. (who has not been to the United States since 1996).
In 1995 defendant's partner in the pizza business wanted to sell the business because he wanted out. Plaintiff spoke to her uncle who counseled against selling the Restaurant but instead recommended they look for a partner. Plaintiff found her cousin who was interested and he paid $200,000 in cash and checks for a 50% ownership interest. He worked the night shift. Unfortunately, her cousin came down with Parkinson's Disease
in 2006. Initially, according to plaintiff, her husband said he was not going to pay the cousin anything because there were no papers. Eventually, she prevailed upon him to do the right thing. He paid him $200,000 in four-five payments.
Plaintiff testified that after her cousin left, she went into the Restaurant more to help out. She also helped count and sort the money at home in the evenings. The routine was that they would sort out the cash and checks, then put some cash and checks with invoices in a plastic bag, then cash into a paper bag with a few invoices for plaintiff to pay and a pile of singles, usually $300–$400. On Tuesday morning plaintiff would deposit all the singles and checks into the bank. This was the routine for the last ten (10) years or more of the marriage.
As to record keeping, plaintiff testified that her husband kept a record of everything in a marble notebook regarding the Restaurant as well as the income producing property. Her son removed all of the marble notebooks that had been stored in the parties' home on the desk, floor, closet, attic and foyer next to the parties' bedroom. Ms. G. saw the notebooks in the back of her son's car and saw him put them in the garage of the H. property owned by the parties (more on the H. property below). The son also removed the business computer and various documents, she testified.
Mr. G. invested in the stock market. At one point, he told his wife he made two million dollars, she claimed. She also alleged she looked at documents showing he transferred a lot of money to Greece. In addition, the defendant purchased gold (seven (7) 10 oz. bars, valued at $18,130 per bar).
The parties own a condominium on the Jersey shore. It is a two family home that was divided into two condominiums. Plaintiff's parents owned the downstairs and her godparents owned the upstairs. Plaintiff testified that in 1998, she went to the lawyer's office where her father paid $90,000 for the upstairs condominium, which was put in her and her father's name. When her father passed away last year, it went to plaintiff in her name alone. Defendant claimed he paid cash for the plaintiff's share in the condominium. There is no evidence of that claim other than defendant's conflicting testimony.
The wife testified about real property in Greece and about her husband sending money to Greece. The thrust of her testimony was that her husband sent money to Greece when they were engaged to be married, to build a three family residence in Greece in the town of P., on the outskirts of Athens. She also testified that whenever they traveled to Greece, he brought tens of thousands of dollars in cash. Defendant denied her allegations and countered that they brought enough cash to pay for extended vacations in Greece before the widespread use of credit cards. This Court finds neither position entirely credible. Plaintiff testified to him sending money to his relatives during the marriage. Essentially, plaintiff claimed her husband spent a lot of marital money on constructing this three family residence. She also claimed he sent money to his brothers. She testified that she overheard him on the phone to Greece say, "This is the last $60,000." As to what this referred to, she did not say. She also claimed he bought his brothers and their wives Mercedes' and BMW's. (Note...
To continue reading
Request your trial