Kaufman v. Kaufman

Decision Date30 January 2013
Citation2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 00459,958 N.Y.S.2d 742,102 A.D.3d 925
PartiesJacquelyn KAUFMAN, respondent, v. Steven KAUFMAN, appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Steven Kaufman, Hyde Park, N.Y., appellant pro se.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., REINALDO E. RIVERA, THOMAS A. DICKERSON, and PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Ritter, J.), dated December 22, 2010, as, upon a decision of the same court dated December 2, 2010, made after a nonjury trial, awarded the plaintiff maintenance in the sum of $577 per week until she reaches the age of 66, remarries, or dies, whichever occurs first; directed him to continue the plaintiff's health insurance coverage during the period he is obligated to pay maintenance, or until the plaintiff becomes entitled to Medicare or is otherwise insured, whichever is sooner; directed the plaintiff to pay child support in the sum of only $155 per week for the period from December 2, 2010, until February 28, 2013, only $133 per week from February 29, 2013,” until July 18, 2015, and only $91 per week from July 19, 2015, until July 24, 2017; failed to apportion to the plaintiff a share of the cost of uncovered health care for the parties' three unemancipated children; failed to apportion to the plaintiff a share of the cost of the children's college expenses; and, failed to apportion to the plaintiff a share of the payments toward a certain loan debt.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the provisions thereof directing the plaintiff to pay child support in the sum of $155 per week for the period from December 2, 2010, until February 28, 2013, $133 per week from February 29, 2013,” until July 18, 2015, and $91 per week from July 19, 2015, until July 24, 2017, and substituting therefor provisions directing the plaintiff to pay the defendant child support in the sum of $167.33 per week for the period from December 2, 2010, until February 28, 2013, $144.25 per week for the period from March 1, 2013, until July 18, 2015, and $98.08 per week from July 19, 2015, until July 24, 2017; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

“The ‘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' ( Morales v. Inzerra, 98 A.D.3d 484, 484, 949 N.Y.S.2d 433, quoting Wortman v. Wortman, 11 A.D.3d 604, 606, 783 N.Y.S.2d 631). “The court may order maintenance in such amount as justice requires, considering, inter alia, the standard of living of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • B. K. v. J. N., * * * * */13.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • July 30, 2015
    ...Court must deduct payments of Social Security, Medicare and New York City taxes that have been "actually paid". See Kaufman v. Kaufman, 102 A.D.3d 925, 958 N.Y.S.2d 742 (2d Dept.2013). Husband has not provided W2 documentation to show the taxes he paid in relation to his 2013 tax return. Wh......
  • D'Iorio v. D'Iorio
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • January 13, 2016
    ...v. Hymowitz, 119 A.D.3d at 742, 991 N.Y.S.2d 57; Marley v. Marley, 106 A.D.3d 961, 962–963, 965 N.Y.S.2d 375; Kaufman v. Kaufman, 102 A.D.3d 925, 926–927, 958 N.Y.S.2d 742; Giokas v. Giokas, 73 A.D.3d at 689, 900 N.Y.S.2d 370; Baron v. Baron, 71 A.D.3d 807, 810, 897 N.Y.S.2d 456; Penna v. P......
  • Castello v. Castello
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 9, 2016
    ...maintenance the plaintiff received to this amount to arrive at an adjusted income of $93,705 for the plaintiff (see Kaufman v. Kaufman, 102 A.D.3d 925, 927, 958 N.Y.S.2d 742 ). Of the combined parental income of $257,398.80, the defendant's pro rata share of unreimbursed medical expenses is......
  • Johnson v. Johnson
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 16, 2019
    ...his income was $ 51,058.85.2 Although the court properly deducted standard FICA taxes from the mother's income (see Kaufman v. Kaufman, 102 A.D.3d 925, 927, 958 N.Y.S.2d 742 [2013] ), the 15.3% deduction that was applied to the husband's income was excessive, and the evidence demonstrates t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT