Goldblum v. Goldblum
| Citation | 754 N.Y.S.2d 32,301 A.D.2d 567 |
| Parties | JEFFREY GOLDBLUM, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>NANCY GOLDBLUM, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 21 January 2003 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion, (1) by adding thereto a provision awarding the defendant exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence until the parties' youngest child attains the age of 18 or is otherwise emancipated, and (2) by deleting the second and third sentence from the eighth decretal paragraph thereof and substituting therefor a provision directing the plaintiff to pay the defendant the sum of $22,500 not more than 30 days after she vacates the marital premises; as so modified the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the defendant, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings and a new determination with respect to the equitable distribution of the parcel of vacant property and the entry of an appropriate amended judgment.
The parties were married on March 9, 1987, and have two children. The parties and their children reside at 40 Makamah Beach Road, in Northport. Pursuant to the divorce judgment, the parties agreed to award custody of the children to the defendant wife. The parties each earn approximately the same amount of money. Prior to the marriage, the plaintiff husband owned a home, which he sold, after the parties' marriage, to purchase the marital residence. The husband renovated the marital home, and holds title to it in his name alone. In addition, the husband and his father purchased the vacant lot adjacent to the marital residence.
The Supreme Court erred in denying the wife's application for the exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence. Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (f) provides that the court may, in its discretion, make an order regarding the use and occupancy of the marital home "without regard to the form of ownership of such property." In addition, exclusive possession of the marital residence is usually granted to the spouse who has custody of the minor children of the marriage (see Poretsky v Poretsky, 176 AD2d 713; Blackman v Blackman, 131 AD2d 801; Patti v Patti, 99 AD2d 772; Damiano v Damiano, 94 AD2d 132). However, the need of the custodial parent to occupy the marital residence is weighed against the financial need of the parties (see Blackman v Blackman, supra; see also, Hillmann v Hillmann, 109 AD2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Strohli v. Strohli
...against the financial need of the parties’ " ( Mosso v. Mosso, 84 A.D.3d 757, 760, 924 N.Y.S.2d 394, quoting Goldblum v. Goldblum, 301 A.D.2d 567, 568, 754 N.Y.S.2d 32 ; see Sotnik v. Zavilyansky, 101 A.D.3d 1102, 1103, 956 N.Y.S.2d 514 ). Here, under the circumstances of this case, includi......
-
Marino v. Marino
...of the custodial parent to occupy the marital residence is weighed against the financial need of the parties" ( Goldblum v. Goldblum, 301 A.D.2d 567, 568, 754 N.Y.S.2d 32 [2003] ). Here, the plaintiff has sole custody of the minor children, two of whom have special needs and require stabili......
-
Sotnik v. Zavilyansky
...... against the financial need of the parties' ” ( Gahagan v. Gahagan, 76 A.D.3d 538, 540, 906 N.Y.S.2d 89, quoting Goldblum v. Goldblum, 301 A.D.2d 567, 568, 754 N.Y.S.2d 32;see Mosso v. Mosso, 84 A.D.3d 757, 760, 924 N.Y.S.2d 394). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court s......
-
McCoy v. McCoy
...residence is generally granted to the custodial parent ( see Cabeche v. Cabeche, 10 A.D.3d 441, 780 N.Y.S.2d 909;Goldblum v. Goldblum, 301 A.D.2d 567, 568, 754 N.Y.S.2d 32;see also Gahagan v. Gahagan, 76 A.D.3d 538, 540, 906 N.Y.S.2d 89). In determining whether the custodial parent should b......