Harold v. Harold
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Citation | 21 N.Y.S.3d 508,133 A.D.3d 1376 |
| Decision Date | 20 November 2015 |
| Parties | Marcella HAROLD, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Sylvester HAROLD, Defendant–Respondent. |
133 A.D.3d 1376
21 N.Y.S.3d 508
Marcella HAROLD, Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
Sylvester HAROLD, Defendant–Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Nov. 20, 2015.
Kustell Law Group, LLP, Buffalo (Carl B. Kustell of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Appellant.
John P. Pieri, Buffalo, for Defendant–Respondent.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND DeJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
By amended order to show cause and supporting affidavit, plaintiff wife moved for, inter alia, equitable distribution of severance benefits received by defendant husband after the entry of a judgment of divorce, and defendant cross-moved to modify the maintenance provisions of the judgment of divorce. Insofar as relevant to this appeal, Supreme Court denied that part of plaintiff's motion concerning severance benefits, granted defendant's cross motion, and ordered a hearing on the issue of maintenance.
Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying that part of her motion seeking equitable distribution of defendant's severance benefits. The record establishes that, in March 2013, and approximately one year after the entry of the judgment of divorce, defendant lost his job and received a severance payment from his employer. Defendant subsequently used the entire severance payment to pay his own living expenses and to pay maintenance to plaintiff through December 2013. We conclude that the severance payments are defendant's separate property inasmuch as his "right to receive those payments did not exist either during the marriage or prior to the commencement of this action, nor did the severance payments constitute compensation for past services" (Bink v. Bink, 55 A.D.3d 1244, 1245, 865 N.Y.S.2d 417 ). In any event, even assuming, arguendo, that the severance payment was marital property, the court's determination was not an abuse of discretion inasmuch as plaintiff had already benefitted from the severance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mura v. Mura
...Rd. Co., LLC v. Dunn & Sgromo Engrs., PLLC, 34 A.D.3d 1364, 1365, 825 N.Y.S.2d 601 ). Here, the record establishes that the deposition 21 N.Y.S.3d 508transcript concerns prejudgment support payments and thus was collateral to the issue before the court. Contrary to defendant's contention in......
-
Strykiewicz v. Strykiewicz
...hearing on the issue of the amount to enable the court to consider the parties' relative financial circumstances (see Harold v. Harold, 133 A.D.3d 1376, 1378, 21 N.Y.S.3d 508 [2015] ). Supreme Court also incorrectly treated plaintiff's cross motion as one to modify the terms of the separati......
-
Frates v. Frates
...relative financial circumstances at the hearing (see Strykiewicz v. Strykiewicz, 135 A.D.3d 1030, 22 N.Y.S.3d 685 ; Harold v. Harold, 133 A.D.3d 1376, 21 N.Y.S.3d 508 ; cf. Frost v. Goldberg, 31 A.D.3d 374, 818 N.Y.S.2d 533 ; Barnes v. Barnes, 234 A.D.2d 959, 651 N.Y.S.2d 776 ). Although th......
-
Castro v. Kaminski, 2019–10512
...the parties' financial circumstances 153 N.Y.S.3d 92 prior to making a determination of the defendant's motion (see Harold v. Harold, 133 A.D.3d 1376, 1378, 21 N.Y.S.3d 508 ). Furthermore, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of his cross mot......
-
Mura v. Mura
...Rd. Co., LLC v. Dunn & Sgromo Engrs., PLLC, 34 A.D.3d 1364, 1365, 825 N.Y.S.2d 601 ). Here, the record establishes that the deposition 21 N.Y.S.3d 508transcript concerns prejudgment support payments and thus was collateral to the issue before the court. Contrary to defendant's contention in......
-
Strykiewicz v. Strykiewicz
...hearing on the issue of the amount to enable the court to consider the parties' relative financial circumstances (see Harold v. Harold, 133 A.D.3d 1376, 1378, 21 N.Y.S.3d 508 [2015] ). Supreme Court also incorrectly treated plaintiff's cross motion as one to modify the terms of the separati......
-
Frates v. Frates
...relative financial circumstances at the hearing (see Strykiewicz v. Strykiewicz, 135 A.D.3d 1030, 22 N.Y.S.3d 685 ; Harold v. Harold, 133 A.D.3d 1376, 21 N.Y.S.3d 508 ; cf. Frost v. Goldberg, 31 A.D.3d 374, 818 N.Y.S.2d 533 ; Barnes v. Barnes, 234 A.D.2d 959, 651 N.Y.S.2d 776 ). Although th......
-
Castro v. Kaminski, 2019–10512
...the parties' financial circumstances 153 N.Y.S.3d 92 prior to making a determination of the defendant's motion (see Harold v. Harold, 133 A.D.3d 1376, 1378, 21 N.Y.S.3d 508 ). Furthermore, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of his cross mot......