Morales v. Inzerra

• Decision Date: 01 August 2012
• Citation: 949 N.Y.S.2d 433,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 05806,98 A.D.3d 484
• Parties: Juan MORALES, appellant, v. Josephine INZERRA, respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

98 A.D.3d 484

949 N.Y.S.2d 433

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 05806

Juan MORALES, appellant,

v.Josephine INZERRA, respondent.

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

Aug. 1, 2012.

John Z. Marangos, Staten Island, N.Y. (Denise Marangos of counsel), for appellant.

McGuire Condon, P.C., Huntington, N.Y. (Karen D. McGuire of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff former husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Garguilo, J.), entered March 21, 2011, as, upon a decision of the same court dated May 7, 2010, made after a nonjury trial, (a) determined that the defendant's interest in certain real property was separate property not subject to equitable distribution, (b) awarded the defendant maintenance in the sum of $325 per week for a period of 10 years, and (c) awarded the defendant an attorney's fee in the sum of $10,000.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff former husband's contention, certain real property located in North Lindenhurst was not converted to marital property through his contributions and efforts toward its renovation ( see Embury v. Embury, 49 A.D.3d 802, 804, 854 N.Y.S.2d 502;cf. Matwijczuk v. Matwijczuk, 261 A.D.2d 784, 785–786, 690 N.Y.S.2d 343). Moreover, “in order for appreciation in the value of separate property to be deemed marital property subject to equitable distribution, the nontitled spouse must demonstrate the manner in which his [or her] contributions resulted in the increase in value and the amount of the increase which was attributable to his [or her] efforts” ( Embury v. Embury, 49 A.D.3d at 804, 854 N.Y.S.2d 502 [citations and internal quotation marks omitted]; see Price v. Price, 69 N.Y.2d 8, 18, 511 N.Y.S.2d 219, 503 N.E.2d 684;Imhof v. Imhof, 259 A.D.2d 666, 667, 686 N.Y.S.2d 825). Here, the plaintiff failed to sustain his burden, as he failed to set forth proof that the property actually increased in value and, in any event, he failed to demonstrate the manner in which his contributions resulted in any alleged appreciation ( see Embury v. Embury, 49 A.D.3d at 804, 854 N.Y.S.2d 502;Rubin v. Rubin, 309 A.D.2d 846, 847, 766 N.Y.S.2d 68;cf. Imhof v. Imhof, 259 A.D.2d at 667, 686 N.Y.S.2d 825).

The “amount and duration of maintenance is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and every case must be determined on its own unique facts” ( Wortman v. Wortman, 11 A.D.3d 604, 606, 783 N.Y.S.2d 631;see Farag v. Farag, 4 A.D.3d 502, 772 N.Y.S.2d 368). The factors to be considered in awarding maintenance include “the standard of living of the parties during the marriage, the income and property of the parties, the distribution of marital property, the duration of the marriage, the health of the parties, the present and future earning capacity of both parties, the ability of the party seeking maintenance to become self-supporting, and the reduced or lost lifetime earning capacity of the party seeking maintenance” ( Kret v. Kret, 222 A.D.2d 412, 413, 634 N.Y.S.2d 719;see Farag v. Farag, 4 A.D.3d at 503, 772 N.Y.S.2d 368;Wilson v. Wilson, 308 A.D.2d 583, 764 N.Y.S.2d 828;O'Sullivan v. O'Sullivan, 282 A.D.2d 586, 723 N.Y.S.2d 397).

Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in requiring the plaintiff to pay the defendant former wife maintenance in the sum of $325 per week for a period of 10 years. The Supreme Court found that the defendant was disabled as a result of multiple sclerosis. She lived in an assisted-living facility and Social Security disability benefits were her only independent source of income. Based on this record the court properly determined that the defendant was unable to support herself, and would not likely become self-supporting in the future ( cf. Kret v. Kret, 222 A.D.2d at 412, 634 N.Y.S.2d 719). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the court properly imputed...