Lincourt v. Lincourt, 94632.

• Decision Date: 19 February 2004
• Docket Number: 94632.
• Parties: WAYNE A. LINCOURT, Appellant, v. LINDA J. LINCOURT, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

4 A.D.3d 666

771 N.Y.S.2d 751

2004 NY Slip Op 01095

WAYNE A. LINCOURT, Appellant, v. LINDA J. LINCOURT, Respondent.

94632.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Third Department.

February 19, 2004.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Coccoma, J.), entered December 10, 2002 in Otsego County, ordering, inter alia, equitable distribution of the parties' marital property, upon a decision of the court.

MUGGLIN, J.

In this divorce action, the parties contested only the valuation of some marital assets (stipulating to the rest) and maintenance. Plaintiff appeals, and his principal contention with respect to equitable distribution is that given the long duration of this marriage—25 years—the marital assets should have been divided equally. Supreme Court awarded plaintiff $596,963, and defendant $686,516, a difference of $89,553. After taking into consideration the income of the parties at the time of the marriage and at the time of commencement of the action, the valuation date, the probable future financial circumstances of the parties, and defendant's loss of inheritance, Supreme Court determined that an equal division of the marital assets was unnecessary.

Equitable distribution issues are resolved by the exercise of the court's sound discretion, guided by consideration of the statutory factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (d) (see Stuart v Stuart, 275 AD2d 533, 535 [2000]; Riley v Jeker, 252 AD2d 680, 681 [1998]), and need not result in an equal division of the marital property regardless of the length of the marriage (see Arvantides v Arvantides, 64 NY2d 1033, 1034 [1985]; Farrell v Clearly-Farrell, 306 AD2d 597, 599 [2003]). Rather, equitable distribution is made after due consideration of the needs and circumstances of each party (see Strang v Strang, 222 AD2d 975, 977 [1995]). Here, in resolving the issues of equitable distribution, Supreme Court considered the appropriate statutory factors as it carefully weighed the evidence presented and exercised its discretion. We find no basis in this record to disturb the award.

As a subissue, plaintiff correctly points out that Supreme Court erred in the valuation of one marital asset by failing to value that asset as stipulated by the parties. This error in valuation results in an additional deviation from equal division of the marital assets in defendant's favor of approximately $8,000, an amount insufficient to require any modification of the equitable distribution award in the circumstances of this case.

Next, plaintiff attacks the award of...