Largiader v. Largiader
| Decision Date | 26 June 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 2,1,2 |
| Citation | 542 N.Y.S.2d 789,151 A.D.2d 724 |
| Parties | Carl LARGIADER, Respondent-Appellant, v. Marie LARGIADER, Appellant-Respondent. (Action) Marie LARGIADER, Appellant-Respondent, v. Carl LARGIADER, Respondent-Appellant. (Action) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ruskin, Schlissel, Moscou, Evans & Faltischek, P.C., Mineola (Stephen W. Schlissel, of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Brandes & Stamler, Garden City (Joel R. Brandes, of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
Before KOOPER, J.P., and SPATT, HARWOOD and ROSENBLATT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In consolidated actions for a divorce and ancillary relief, (1) the wife appeals from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Fierro, J.), entered June 17, 1987, which, inter alia, after a nonjury trial, (a) denied her maintenance, (b) determined that the value of the husband's retirement plans was $253,058, (c) determined that the value of Lani Bird, Inc., was $22,666.44, (d) failed to grant a distributive award amounting to 100% of the increase in value of the marital home since the date Action No. 2 was commenced, (e) determined that the value of her interest in a real estate partnership was $15,000, (f) limited her award for necessaries to $58,849.63, (g) failed to award her a portion of a certificate of deposit in the First Interstate Bank, and (h) failed to award her the full amount of counsel fees requested, and (2) the husband cross-appeals from stated portions of the same judgment which, inter alia, (a) failed to determine the appropriate proportion of his retirement plans that was subject to equitable distribution, (b) awarded the wife an amount for necessaries, (c) determined that the 51 shares of Lani Bird, Inc., were marital property, (d) failed to include certain of the wife's assets as marital property, (e) determined that the value of the wife's interest in a real estate partnership was $15,000, and (f) awarded the wife counsel fees of $20,000.
ORDERED, that the judgment is modified, on the law and the facts and as a matter of discretion, by (1) adding a provision thereto awarding the wife the legal rate of interest on her share of the husband's pension plans, calculated from October 11, 1980 to June 17, 1987, (2) deleting the provision thereof awarding the wife the parties' household furnishings, (3) deleting the provision thereof which treated the shares of Lani Bird, Inc., as marital assets, (4) adding a provision thereto awarding the wife maintenance of $200 a week from the date of the trial court's memorandum decision dated February 10, 1987, until the husband's death or the wife's death or remarriage whichever occurs first, (5) adding a provision thereto directing the husband to obtain health and life insurance for the benefit of the wife as long as his obligation to pay maintenance continues, (6) deleting the provision thereof awarding the wife $160,200, and substituting therefor a provision awarding the wife title to the marital residence and directing the husband to transfer his interest in the property to her, (7) deleting the provision thereof awarding the wife counsel fees, and (8) adding a provision thereto awarding the wife interest at the legal rate (see, CPLR 5001) on the unpaid installment payments for necessaries and directing that each installment becomes due on January 1 of the year in which it is due; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings consistent herewith, and for the entry of an appropriate amended judgment.
The parties commenced these consolidated actions for divorce in 1980 after 28 years of marriage. The court dismissed the husband's cause of action after a trial in 1986 and granted the wife a divorce on the ground, inter alia, of cruel and inhuman treatment. The issues...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pappas v. Pappas
...; Selinger v. Selinger, 250 A.D.2d 752, 672 N.Y.S.2d 913 ; Trivedi v. Trivedi, 222 A.D.2d 499, 635 N.Y.S.2d 78 ; Largiader v. Largiader, 151 A.D.2d 724, 542 N.Y.S.2d 789 ), under the circumstances here, prejudgment interest should not have been awarded. In addition, the Supreme Court erred ......
-
Pappas v. Pappas
...Selinger, 250 A.D.2d 752, 672 N.Y.S.2d 913 ; Trivedi v. Trivedi, 222 A.D.2d 499, 635 N.Y.S.2d 78 ; 22 N.Y.S.3d 499Largiader v. Largiader, 151 A.D.2d 724, 542 N.Y.S.2d 789 ), under the circumstances here, prejudgment interest on the distributive award should not have been awarded. In additio......
-
Chasin v. Chasin
...v. Schanback, 159 A.D.2d 498, 552 N.Y.S.2d 370, lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 703, 559 N.Y.S.2d 982, 559 N.E.2d 676; cf., Largiader v. Largiader, 151 A.D.2d 724, 542 N.Y.S.2d 789; Provosky v. Provosky, 124 A.D.2d 1068, 508 N.Y.S.2d 722). The action moved promptly to trial 1 and the record fails to s......
-
Ritz v. Ritz
...prejudgment interest on the distributive award (see, Schanback v. Schanback, 159 A.D.2d 498, 552 N.Y.S.2d 370); cf., Largiader v. Largiader, 151 A.D.2d 724, 542 N.Y.S.2d 789; Povosky v. Povosky, 124 A.D.2d 1068, 508 N.Y.S.2d In view of the husband's reliance on the Supreme Court's deliberat......