Iarocci v. Iarocci
| Decision Date | 19 September 2012 |
| Citation | 951 N.Y.S.2d 176,98 A.D.3d 999,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 06191 |
| Parties | Carla Nolletti IAROCCI, respondent, v. Nicholas IAROCCI, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
98 A.D.3d 999
951 N.Y.S.2d 176
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 06191
Carla Nolletti IAROCCI, respondent,
v.
Nicholas IAROCCI, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Sept. 19, 2012.
[951 N.Y.S.2d 177]
Eric Ole Thorsen, New City, N.Y. (Ilene Kim Graff of counsel), for appellant.
Collier, Halpern, Newberg, Nolletti & Bock, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (James J. Nolletti, Harry J. Nicolay, Jr., Efrem Z. Fischer, and Alexandra M. Maxwell of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, RANDALL T. ENG, and CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JJ.
[98 A.D.3d 999]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, Westchester County (Jamieson, J.), dated November 10, 2010, which, upon a decision of the same court entered April 28, 2010, made after a nonjury trial, inter alia, awarded the plaintiff a credit in the sum of $24,175, representing her reimbursement of capital gains taxes paid by her as a result of the defendant's sale of property located on Truesdale Hill Road in Lake George, awarded the plaintiff a credit in the sum of $12,000, representing her repayment, during the marriage, of the defendant's premarital, separate debt to his sister, awarded the plaintiff the sum of $4,050 in monthly child support, directed the defendant to pay his pro rata share of the children's nanny and private school tuition expenses and his pro rata share of the children's extracurricular activities expenses up to $3,000 per year, determined that the appreciation in value of the plaintiff's separate property located on Hathaway Lane in White Plains was not subject to equitable distribution, and awarded the plaintiff a money judgment for her “lump sum” distributive award of $591,832.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, (1) by deleting the provision thereof awarding the plaintiff a credit in the sum of [98 A.D.3d 1000]$24,175, representing her reimbursement of capital gains taxes paid by her as a result of the defendant's sale of property located on Truesdale Hill Road in Lake George, and (2) by deleting the provision thereof awarding the plaintiff a money judgment in the sum of $591,832 for her “lump sum” distributive award, and substituting therefor a provision awarding the plaintiff a money judgment in the sum of $567,657, which the defendant may pay in equal annual installments over a period of 10 years, together with interest at the statutory rate of 9% per annum on each year's unpaid balance, with the first payment due on November 10, 2012, and all subsequent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spinner v. Spinner
...the court should have permitted the plaintiff to pay the award in installments over a period of 10 years (see Iarocci v. Iarocci , 98 A.D.3d 999, 1000, 951 N.Y.S.2d 176 ), together with interest at the statutory rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order appealed from (see CPLR 5004 ).......
-
Sinnott v. Sinnott
...defendant's purported pro rata share of the parties’ combined income (see Domestic Relations Law § 240[1–b][c][3] ; Iarocci v. Iarocci, 98 A.D.3d 999, 1001, 951 N.Y.S.2d 176 ). Thus, under step three, we apply the child support percentage of 17% to the parties’ capped excess income above th......
-
Candea v. Candea
...159 A.D.3d 914, 915, 70 N.Y.S.3d 79 ; Matter of Keith v. Lawrence, 113 A.D.3d 615, 616, 978 N.Y.S.2d 316 ; Iarocci v. Iarocci, 98 A.D.3d 999, 1001, 951 N.Y.S.2d 176 )."The amount and duration of maintenance is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and every case mus......
-
Klein v. Klein
...of the court's discretion (see Matter of Cassano v. Cassano , 85 N.Y.2d 649, 655, 628 N.Y.S.2d 10, 651 N.E.2d 878 ; Iarocci v. Iarocci , 98 A.D.3d 999, 951 N.Y.S.2d 176 )."The decision to award an attorney's fee in a matrimonial action lies, in the first instance, in the discretion of the t......