Hainsworth v. Hainsworth

• Decision Date: 11 June 2014
• Citation: 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 04169,987 N.Y.S.2d 215,118 A.D.3d 747
• Parties: Glenis Raphael HAINSWORTH, respondent, v. Victor HAINSWORTH, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

118 A.D.3d 747

987 N.Y.S.2d 215

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 04169

Glenis Raphael HAINSWORTH, respondent,

v.Victor HAINSWORTH, appellant.

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

June 11, 2014.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREVictor Hainsworth, Staten Island, N.Y., appellant pro se.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (De Lizzo, Ct. Atty. Ref.), entered March 21, 2013, which, upon a decision of the same court dated June 12, 2012, made after a nonjury trial, inter alia, imputed to him an annual income of $102,000 for the purpose of calculating his child support obligation, awarded the plaintiff maintenance in the sum of $1,500 per month until the earlier of her attaining the age of 62, her remarriage, or her death, directed him to secure his maintenance and child support obligations by maintaining a life insurance policy with a death benefit in the sum of $500,000, and awarded the plaintiff the sum of $35,993.37 in counsel fees.

ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal from the decision is deemed to be a premature notice of appeal from the judgment ( see CPLR 5520[c] ); and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by adding a provision thereto stating that the defendant's life insurance obligation shall terminate upon the termination of his maintenance and child support obligations; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

“ ‘[T]he amount and duration of maintenance is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and every case must be determined on its own unique facts' ” ( Marley v. Marley, 106 A.D.3d 961, 962, 965 N.Y.S.2d 375, quoting Siskind v. Siskind, 89 A.D.3d 832, 833, 933 N.Y.S.2d 60). In determining the amount and duration of an award of maintenance, the Supreme Court “must consider the factors enumerated in Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(6)(a), which include the predivorce standard of living of the parties, the income and property of the parties, the equitable distribution of marital property, the duration of the marriage, the present and future earning capacity of the parties, the ability of the party seeking maintenance to be self-supporting, and the reduced or lost earning capacity of the party seeking maintenance” ( Giokas v. Giokas, 73 A.D.3d 688, 689, 900 N.Y.S.2d 370;see Hartog v. Hartog, 85 N.Y.2d 36, 51–52, 623 N.Y.S.2d 537, 647 N.E.2d 749;Marley v. Marley, 106 A.D.3d at 962, 965 N.Y.S.2d 375;Siskind v. Siskind, 89 A.D.3d at 833, 933 N.Y.S.2d 60;Litvak v. Litvak, 63 A.D.3d 691, 880 N.Y.S.2d 690). Here, the Supreme Court properly considered the relevant factors, which included the long duration of the marriage, the disparity in the parties' incomes, the plaintiff's limited earning potential, the plaintiff's limited assets, the insignificant distributive award, and the parties' predivorce standard of living, and providently exercised its discretion in awarding the plaintiff maintenance in the sum of $1,500 per month until the earlier of the plaintiff attaining the age of 62, her remarriage, or her death ( see Levitt v. Levitt, 97 A.D.3d 543, 544, 948 N.Y.S.2d 108;Siskind v. Siskind, 89 A.D.3d at 833, 933 N.Y.S.2d 60;Litvak v. Litvak, 63 A.D.3d at 691–692, 880 N.Y.S.2d 690).

“A court need not rely upon a party's own account of his or her finances, but may impute income based upon the party's past income or demonstrated future potential earnings” ( Haagen–Islami v. Islami, 96 A.D.3d 1004, 1005, 946 N.Y.S.2d 889 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Patete v. Rodriguez, 109 A.D.3d 595, 599, 971 N.Y.S.2d 109;Sotnik v. Zavilyansky, 101 A.D.3d 1102, 1103, 956 N.Y.S.2d 514;Cusumano v. Cusumano, 96 A.D.3d 988, 989, 947 N.Y.S.2d 175). “The court may impute...