Murtha v. Murtha

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Citation: Murtha v. Murtha, 694 N.Y.S.2d 382, 264 AD2d 552 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
• Decision Date: 02 September 1999
• Parties: THOMAS O. MURTHA, Appellant-Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>JILL M. MURTHA, Respondent-Appellant.

264 A.D.2d 552

694 N.Y.S.2d 382

THOMAS O. MURTHA, Appellant-Respondent,

v.JILL M. MURTHA, Respondent-Appellant.

Decided September 2, 1999.

Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Tom, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.

In view of the enormous disparity between the parties' current and future income potential and the loss of career potential suffered by defendant-wife in the course of the marriage, as well as her fragile emotional state, the IAS Court properly confirmed the Hearing Officer's recommendation that she be awarded 60 percent of the marital estate. However, the IAS Court should also have confirmed the remainder of the report, except as indicated herein since the findings and recommendations therein were substantially supported by the record (see, Banker v Banker, 248 AD2d 144; Stone v Stone, 229 AD2d 388), and there was no reasonable basis here for declining to accept them.

Thus, while the Hearing Officer found plaintiff's CFA certification, acquired by the husband during the marriage, to be worth $3,353,052, the court deemed the highly prestigious CFA to be without value since it was not a requirement for employment as a financial analyst. We agree with the conclusion of the Hearing Officer that the certification had value, but, on the basis of this record, find such only to the extent of $200,000. While the CFA may not actually be a prerequisite for employment and/or advancement in plaintiff's...