Merzon v. Merzon

• Decision Date: 27 December 1994
• Citation: 620 N.Y.S.2d 832,210 A.D.2d 462
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: Susan MERZON, Respondent-Appellant, v. Richard MERZON, Appellant-Respondent, Bailey, Marshall & Hoeniger, Nonparty Respondent-Appellant.

Page 832

620 N.Y.S.2d 832

210 A.D.2d 462

Susan MERZON, Respondent-Appellant, v. Richard MERZON, Appellant-Respondent Bailey, Marshall & Hoeniger, Nonparty Respondent-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Dec. 27, 1994.

Abraham Hecht, Forest Hills, for appellant-respondent.

Rivkin, Radler & Kremer, Uniondale (Evan H. Krinick and John M. Denby, of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

Bailey, Marshall & Hoeniger, New York City (Mitchell M. Bailey, of counsel), nonparty respondent-appellant pro se.

Before BALLETTA, J.P., and O'BRIEN, COPERTINO and PIZZUTO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, (1) the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Modugno, J.H.O.), dated January 16, 1991, as, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, (a) awarded the plaintiff wife maintenance, (b) determined the value of the marital residence, (c) ordered the defendant to maintain health insurance, and (d) awarded the plaintiff counsel fees and disbursements, (2) the plaintiff wife cross-appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of the same judgment, which, inter alia, (a) limited her maintenance to $750 per week, (b) determined the value of the business assets, (c) determined that certain bonds and bank accounts held by the defendant were his separate property, and (d) declined to award accountants' fees, (3) Bailey, Marshall & Hoeniger cross-appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the same judgment as determined the amount of reasonable counsel fees, and (4) the defendant husband further appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of an order of the same court (Rutledge, J.), dated December 14, 1992, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiff wife's motion to hold him in contempt for failure to convey title of the marital residence to her and to obtain a life insurance policy in the face value of $150,000 for her benefit.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion, by (1) increasing the plaintiff wife's maintenance from $750 to $900 per week, (2) deleting from the eighth decretal paragraph thereof the words "$25,000", "$12,500.00", and "$12,500.00" and substituting therefor the words "fifty thousand dollars ($50,000)", "twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000)", and "twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000)" respectively; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

ORDERED that the respondents-appellants are awarded one bill of costs.

The husband and wife were married on June 23, 1962. After becoming pregnant with their first child in 1963, the wife terminated her employment as a school teacher and became a housewife. The husband began working for a family-owned leather company. Numerous company perquisites enabled the couple to maintain a lavish home in Manhasset Hills, New York, and to breed thoroughbred Irish Wolfhounds. They took numerous vacations and generally enjoyed a comfortable lifestyle. At the time of trial, the husband earned in excess of $200,000 annually. The parties have two emancipated children.

In 1984, the wife began to suffer from a constriction of her peripheral vision. She was later diagnosed as having retinitis pigmentosa in both eyes, a degenerative disease that often leads to blindness. Thereafter, the wife's efforts to obtain permanent employment were unsuccessful.

We find that the trial court's award to the wife of permanent maintenance in the amount of $750 per week was inadequate. In view of the wife's medical condition, which precludes employment and retraining, the parties' lavish standard of living during their marriage, and the husband's substantial income, we find it more appropriate to grant the wife an award of maintenance in the sum of $900 per week (see, Schnee v. Schnee, 152 A.D.2d 665, 544 N.Y.S.2d 18; Neumark v. Neumark, 120 A.D.2d 502, 501 N.Y.S.2d 704).

The record supports the court's determination that the husband was the actual owner of only 50% of the shares of stock of BMI Beaux-Merzon, Inc. Evidence produced at the trial...