Maddaloni v. Maddaloni

• Decision Date: 05 May 2021
• Docket Number: Index No. 8359/11
• Citation: 149 N.Y.S.3d 97,194 A.D.3d 705
• Parties: Laura MADDALONI, respondent, v. Luigi MADDALONI, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

194 A.D.3d 705

149 N.Y.S.3d 97

Laura MADDALONI, respondent,

v.Luigi MADDALONI, appellant.

Index No. 8359/11

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted—February 22, 2021

May 5, 2021

Campagna Johnson, P.C., Hauppauge, N.Y. (Thomas K. Campagna of counsel), for appellant.

Helig, Branigan, Miller & Castrovinci, Holbrook, N.Y. (Michael J. Miller of counsel), for respondent.

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered May 19, 2014, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County ( David T. Reilly, J.), dated January 12, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from, (1) denied those branches of the defendant's motion which were (a), in effect, for leave to reargue and renew that branch of his prior motion which was to direct the plaintiff to pay 50% of the carrying charges incurred by the defendant in connection with the marital residence, which had been denied in an order of the same court dated May 26, 2015, (b) to direct that the plaintiff's share of certain jewelry be valued as of the date of the entry of the judgment of divorce, (c) to hold the plaintiff in contempt for failing to sell the subject jewelry and distribute the proceeds equally between the parties, (d) to appoint a receiver to sell the subject jewelry, and (e) to credit the defendant for certain payments he made for the plaintiff's health insurance and automobile insurance, and (2) granted the plaintiff's motion for a determination that certain items, including a silver collection, located in a safe in the marital residence, were marital property subject to equitable distribution pursuant to the judgment of divorce, and thereupon directed that the plaintiff retain the subject jewelry and the defendant retain the subject silver collection, in effect, in satisfaction of the parties' claims to equitable distribution of those items.

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order dated January 12, 2018, as denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was, in effect, for leave to reargue that branch of his prior motion which was to direct the plaintiff to pay 50% of the carrying charges incurred by the defendant in connection with the marital residence, is dismissed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated January 12, 2018, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

The parties were married in January 1988. On August 22, 1988, the parties entered into a postnuptial agreement, which provided, with limited exceptions, that any property acquired by either party during the marriage would be the separate property of the party who acquired it. The instant action for a divorce and ancillary relief was commenced in 2011. In an order dated December 11, 2012, the Supreme Court, inter alia, upheld the separate property provisions of the postnuptial agreement.

A judgment of divorce entered May 19, 2014, after a trial, directed that the marital residence be sold and the net proceeds divided equally between the parties; that the parties divide the personal property in the marital residence equally between them, and if an agreement could not be reached, that the parties sell all of the personal property in the marital residence and the proceeds be divided equally between them; and that the plaintiff retain certain pieces of jewelry and sell the remaining pieces of jewelry, with the proceeds divided equally between the parties. By decision and order dated August 24, 2016, this Court, inter alia, affirmed the judgment of divorce insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from (see Maddaloni v. Maddaloni, 142 A.D.3d 646, 36 N.Y.S.3d 695 ).

During the pendency of that appeal and cross appeal, the defendant moved, inter alia, to direct the plaintiff to pay 50% of the carrying charges on the marital residence and to credit the defendant for any such payments made on the plaintiff's behalf since March 2014. By order dated May 26, 2015, the Supreme Court, among other things, denied those branches of the defendant's motion. By decision and order dated July 18, 2018, this Court, inter alia, affirmed the order dated May 26, 2015, insofar as appealed from (see Maddaloni v. Maddaloni, 163 A.D.3d 792, 82 N.Y.S.3d 53 ).

The defendant moved, inter alia, in effect, for leave to reargue and renew that branch of his prior motion which was to direct the plaintiff to pay 50% of the carrying charges incurred by the defendant in connection with the marital residence, which had been denied in the order dated May 26, 2015, to direct that the plaintiff's share of the jewelry which the judgment of divorce directed the plaintiff to sell be valued as of the date of the entry of the judgment of divorce, to hold the plaintiff in contempt for failing to sell the subject jewelry and distribute the proceeds equally between the parties, to appoint a receiver to sell the subject jewelry, and to credit the defendant for certain payments he made for the plaintiff's health insurance and automobile insurance. The plaintiff moved for a determination that certain items, including a silver collection, located in a safe in the marital residence, were marital property subject to equitable distribution pursuant to the judgment of divorce. By order dated January 12, 2018, the Supreme Court denied those branches of the defendant's motion, granted the plaintiff's motion, and thereupon directed that the plaintiff retain the jewelry at issue and the defendant retain the silver collection at issue, in effect, in...