Kirshenbaum v. Kirshenbaum

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: Before SULLIVAN
• Citation: Kirshenbaum v. Kirshenbaum, 611 N.Y.S.2d 228, 203 A.D.2d 534 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
• Decision Date: 25 April 1994
• Parties: William KIRSHENBAUM, Respondent-Appellant, v. Susan KIRSHENBAUM, Appellant-Respondent.

Page 228

611 N.Y.S.2d 228

203 A.D.2d 534

William KIRSHENBAUM, Respondent-Appellant, v. Susan KIRSHENBAUM, Appellant-Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

April 25, 1994.

Abraham Hecht, Forest Hills (Warren S. Hecht, on the brief), for appellant-respondent.

Lerner, Gordon & Hirsch, P.C., Carle Place (Stanley Hirsch, of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and O'BRIEN, GOLDSTEIN and FLORIO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In consolidated actions for a divorce and ancillary relief and to recover damages for malicious prosecution, (1) the defendant wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kohn, J.), dated July 11, 1991, which, inter alia, after a nonjury trial, (a) valued and distributed the marital property, (b) valued the marital liabilities as of the date of the commencement of the trial, (c) awarded her maintenance in the amount of only $200 per week for a period of three years, (d) awarded child support in the amount of only $300 per week for each of the parties' two children, (e) failed to award her counsel fees and accountant's fees, and (f) found her liable for malicious prosecution and awarded $20,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000 in punitive damages to the plaintiff husband; and (2) the plaintiff husband cross-appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of the same judgment which, inter alia, (a) deemed certain shares of stock to be marital property rather than his separate property, (b) valued the marital liabilities as of the date of the commencement of the trial, (c) awarded maintenance to the wife, (d) directed him to pay child support, and (e) failed to award him counsel fees and accountant's fees.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh decretal paragraphs thereof concerning the equitable distribution of the marital property and the valuation of liabilities consisting of certain margin accounts as of the date of the commencement of the trial, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing to determine the value of the margin accounts as of the date of the commencement of the matrimonial action and, to the extent necessary, for a redistribution of the marital property in accordance therewith; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

It is well settled that the trial court has broad discretion in selecting the dates for the valuation of marital assets and, depending on the particular circumstances of the case, may appropriately fix different valuation dates for different assets (see, Siegel v. Siegel, 132 A.D.2d 247, 523 N.Y.S.2d 517; Wegman v. Wegman, 123 A.D.2d 220, 509 N.Y.S.2d 342). In this case, we discern no improvident exercise of discretion in the court's valuation of some assets as of the commencement of the divorce action, and its valuation of other assets as of the time of trial (see, Greenwald v. Greenwald, 164 A.D.2d 706, 565 N.Y.S.2d 494). Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly considered 9,750 disputed shares of stock in New Plan...